NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OP INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND JOSE ABIDAY AND 38 OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

National Shipyards and Steel Corporation versus Court of Industrial Relations

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the National Shipyards and Steel Corporation, commonly called NASSCO, against the Court of Industrial Relations and Jose Abiday together with thirty eight other employees. NASSCO owns vessels used in its shipbuilding and repair business, and the respondents served as crew members of its tugboats. The respondents claimed overtime compensation for hours worked beyond the regular eight hour workday and on Sundays and legal holidays. The case matters because it settles two questions that recur in Philippine labor practice: what evidence suffices to prove overtime work at sea, and whether the industrial court retains jurisdiction over employees who have since left the service.

Procedural History

The respondents filed their claim in the Court of Industrial Relations, where the case was submitted for decision on a stipulation of facts. On November 22, 1957, the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order requiring NASSCO to pay the respondents twenty five per cent additional compensation for work done in excess of eight hours, and directed its examiner to compute the amounts from the logbooks, time sheets, and other records of NASSCO. The examiner filed two reports, one covering the year 1957 and another covering the years 1954 to 1956, crediting the respondents with overtime work at an average of five hours a day.

NASSCO challenged those reports before the Supreme Court in two separate petitions for certiorari. Both petitions were dismissed, and the resolution on the first became the law of the case. The respondents then asked the Court of Industrial Relations to direct its examiner to proceed with the computation for the years 1949 to 1953 and 1958 to 1960. That was granted, and on June 15, 1962, the examiner submitted a third report, which the Court of Industrial Relations approved in its order of November 27, 1962. NASSCO moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc denied the motion. Hence this petition for review.

Facts

NASSCO operated a fleet of vessels in connection with its shipbuilding and repair business. The respondents were employed as crew members of its tugboats. Under the stipulation of facts, the parties agreed that to meet the exigencies of the service, the respondents had to work when required in excess of eight hours a day and on Sundays and legal holidays, and that the respondents were paid their regular salaries and subsistence allowance without additional compensation for overtime work.

Pedro de Joya, a marine land surveyor employed by NASSCO, testified that the respondents had really worked overtime, as shown by their daily time sheets, payrolls, logbooks, and other pertinent records. He explained that the crew was supposed to work in three eight hour shifts, but only two men were assigned on deck, the captain and the master; only two engineers and two oilers were assigned in the engine; and only two crew members were assigned elsewhere on the launch or ship. As a result, each crew member ordinarily worked a minimum of at least twelve hours each, and sometimes more than twelve hours due to repairs, storms, and other calamities.

Three of the respondents, Rodolfo Riaza, Gualberto Legaspi, and Mauricio Zulueta, were still employees of NASSCO when the Court of Industrial Relations decided the case and when it issued its first order on November 22, 1957. By the time the respondents filed their motion on November 25, 1960, asking for the continuation of the computation, those three were no longer employees of NASSCO.

Issues

• Whether or not there is evidence to support the examiner's finding that the respondents rendered five hours of overtime service daily during the periods 1949 to 1953 and 1958 to 1960.
• Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the claims of the three respondents who had ceased to be employees of NASSCO.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It instead applies the doctrine laid down in Luzon Stevedoring Company versus Luzon Marine Department Union, which the Court states as follows:

The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and could not leave the ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day but, rather, whether they actually rendered service in excess of eight hours.

This criterion bears on the case because NASSCO argued that mere presence on board the vessels while sailing does not prove overtime work, and the Court had to measure the examiner's finding against this standard.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the assignment of error is not well taken. The testimony of Pedro de Joya, the marine land surveyor employed by NASSCO, established that the respondents had really worked overtime, as shown by their daily time sheets, payrolls, logbooks, and other pertinent records. He testified that although the crew was supposed to work in three eight hour shifts, only two men were assigned on deck, only two engineers and two oilers in the engine, and only two crew members elsewhere, so that each crew member ordinarily worked a minimum of at least twelve hours each, and sometimes more than twelve hours due to repairs, storms, and other calamities. The finding of the Court of Industrial Relations that the respondents had worked overtime is a finding of fact which the Supreme Court cannot disturb if it is supported by sufficient evidence, and after examining the records, the Court was satisfied that it is supported by evidence.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held that the assignment of error is not well taken. At the time the case was decided by the Court of Industrial Relations, the three respondents Rodolfo Riaza, Gualberto Legaspi, and Mauricio Zulueta were actually employees of NASSCO. The first order of the court dated November 22, 1957, granting overtime pay to the respondents including those three, shows that they were actually working with NASSCO, although at the time of the filing of the motion dated November 25, 1960, for the continuation of the computation, they were no longer employees. Jurisdiction therefore attached, and the subsequent severance of their employment did not divest the Court of Industrial Relations of jurisdiction over their claims.

Doctrine

First, the criterion for overtime pay of sailors is not whether they were on board and could not leave the ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in excess of eight hours. Second, the finding of the Court of Industrial Relations that employees had worked overtime is a finding of fact that the Supreme Court will not disturb if it is supported by sufficient evidence, such as the testimony of the employer's own surveyor and the daily time sheets, payrolls, and logbooks. Third, the Court of Industrial Relations has jurisdiction over the claims of employees who were actually employed at the time the case was decided, and the fact that they ceased to be employees before the filing of a subsequent motion for continuation of the computation does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over their claims.

Disposition

The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, with costs against NASSCO, so the respondents prevailed and their award of overtime pay stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: for sailors, overtime pay depends not on mere presence on board beyond eight hours but on actual service rendered in excess of eight hours, and the industrial court's finding of overtime, supported by the employer's own records and testimony, is a finding of fact the Supreme Court will not disturb. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between being on board and actually rendering service, and to test whether jurisdiction over a labor claim is lost when the employee later leaves the service.