DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

Review of an order of the Court of
Industrial Relations awarding to members of the respondent association
a certain sum for back overtime wages.

The record discloses that upon petition properly submitted, said
court made an investigation and found that the members of the United
Employees Welfare Association (hereafter called the Association) were
in the employ of the petitioner Detective & Protective Bureau Inc.
(herein called the Bureau) which is engaged in the business of
furnishing security guards to commercial and industrial establishments, paying to said members monthly salaries out of what it received from
the establishments benefited by guard service. The employment called
for daily tours of duty for more than eight hours, in addition to work
on Sundays and holidays. Nonetheless the members performed their labors
without receiving extra compensation.

By order of the court, one of its officers in the Auditing
Department examined petitioner’s books, made a computation of the
additional payment for such overtime work, and reported that the amount
owing to the members or employees totalled eight thousand five hundred
and forty five pesos and forty-eight centavos (P8,545.48) as itemized
in Exhibit A, Consequently the respondent Bureau was required to
disgorge that sum for overtime wages.

It appears that the Bureau had been granting the members of the
Association, every month, “two days off”—days in which they rendered no
service, although they received salary for the whole month. Said Bureau
contended below that the pay corresponding to said 2-day vacation
corresponded to the wages for extra work. The court rejected the
contention, quite properly we believe, because in the contract there
was no agreement to that effect; and such agreement, if any, would
probably be contrary to the provisions of the Eight-Hour Law (Act No.
444 sec. 6) and would be null and void ab initio.

It is argued here, in opposition to the payment, that until the
commencement of this litigation the members of the Association never
claimed for overtime pay. That may be true. Nevertheless the law gives
them the right to extra compensation. And they could not be held to
have impliedly waived such extra compensation, for the obvious reason that they could not have expressly waived it.

It is also argued that the respondent court has no jurisdiction to
award overtime pay, which is a money judgment. We believe that under
Com. Act No. 103 the Court is empowered to make the order for the
purpose of settling disputes between employer and employee ^[1].
As a matter of fact this Court has confirmed an order of the Court of
Industrial Relations requiring the Elks1 Club to pay to its employees a
certain sum of money as overtime back wages from June 3, 1939 to March
13, 1941. This, in spite of the allegation of lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of said court. (45 O.G. 3329)

Again it is urged that no recovery may be had for work beyond the
3-hour daily period, because no permit had been obtained from the
Secretary of Labor. On this point we have to reiterate our ruling in
Gotamco Lumber Co. vs. CIR (G. R. No. L-2569).

“The petitioner maintains that as the overtime work
had been performed without a permit from the Department of Labor, no
extra compensation should be authorized. Several decisions of this
Court are involved. But those decisions were based on the
reasoning that as both the laborer and employer were dkuty bound to
secure the permit from the Department of labor, both were in ‘pari
delict’. However the present law in effect imposed that duty upon the
employer (C A. No. 444). Such employer may not therefore be heard to plead his own neglect as exemption or defenses. The
employee, in rendering extra service at the request of his employer has
a right to assume that the latter has complied with the requirement of
the law, and therefore has obtained the required permission from the
Department of Labor”. (Gotamco Lumber Co. vs. CIR)

Wherefore, inasmuch as the petitioner does not raise the question
that the amount determined by the Court does not accord ,with the
number of extra hours or holidays for which overpayment must be made,
and inasmuch as we find no . error in the legal conclusions of the
Court of Industrial Relations, the appealed order is affirmed, with
costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Cf. The Shell Co vs. National Labor Union, 46 O.G. Suppl. 1, p. 97..