Facts
Seabren hired Cambila and Samad as security guards on April 8, 2007, and June 12, 2013, respectively, and assigned them at Ecoland 4000 Residences in Davao City, on the following periods:
| Name | Period posted at Ecoland |
| Cambila | November 28, 2011 to January 31, 2018 |
| Samad | December 10, 2013 to February 10, 2014 July 12, 2014 to January 31, 2018 |
The security guards alleged that during their assignment at Ecoland, Seabren obliged them to render a 12-hour duty from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm without any rest day for a daily wage of Php300.37 (Php300.06 for Cambila). According to the security guards, Seabren did not pay them overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and 13th month pay. On top of that, Seabren deducted an amount ranging from Php200 to Php400 from their salary supposedly for their 13th-month pay.
Sometime in November 2017, the security guards complained to Seabren’s management and asked for an increase in their salary in accordance with the minimum wage set by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, but their requests were ignored. Instead, Seabren informed the security guards that they were relieved from their post at Ecoland, but they would be transferred to another post with the same pay.
Consequently, Cambila and Samad were constrained to resign on January 31, 2018, and February 1, 2018, respectively. Cambila and Samad then filed complaints for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime pay.
The security guards submitted their Daily Time Records (DTR), signed by Ecoland’s manager, proving that they worked 12 continuous hours.
Seabren argued that the security guards worked on a broken period, which took effect when the contract for security services with Ecoland began. Seabren, through its Operations Manager, issued a Memorandum to the security guards which indicated detailed instructions about their shift. In particular, the time schedule of the security guards are as follows: a) the duty of the first and second guard on day shift starts at 7:00 am to 11:00 am and resumes at 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm The four-hour period in between is their break time; b) the schedule of the third guard on day shift begins at 11:00 am to 3:00 pm, and starts again at 7:00 to 11:00 pm The period from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm is the break time; c) the fourth guard on night shift starts his post at 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm and resumes duty at 3:00 am to 7:00 am. The period from 11:00 pm to 3:00 am is the break time; and d) the duty of the fifth guard on night shift is from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm and resumes at 11:00 pm to 3:00 am
Seabren averred that based on the above Duty Detail Order (DDO), the security guards only rendered eight hours of work under a set-up of broken periods, and during their four-hour break, they may choose to go out of the establishment. Seabren, however, admitted that “it has been the long-time practice of the security guards that during the break time, they do not already go out of the establishment to take their break. They just wait until the resumption of their respective duty time schedule.”
Both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission determined that the guards were not wrongfully dismissed. However, they were entitled to overtime pay since they worked for 12 consecutive hours.
The NLRC also found that there was no need for the broken period arrangement, as Seabren itself admitted that the security guards did not leave their posts during the break period. Seabren resorted to such a scheme to avoid paying overtime pay.
The CA reversed the decisions, stating that the DTRs presented by petitioners did not bear the signature of their timekeepers nor any of Seabren’s representatives, hence it ruled that the DTRs had no probative value.
ISSUE: Whether or not the security guards were able to show that they worked more than eight hours and are thus entitled to overtime pay under the Labor Code.
Ruling
YES, the security guards were able to show that they worked more than eight hours and are entitled to overtime pay under the Labor Code.
The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is clear that “the time during which an employee is inactive because of interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered working time…if the interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest.” It was simply impractical, inconvenient, and uneconomical for the security guards, who are minimum wage earners, to report to work, go home, and/or leave Ecoland’s premises, only to report back within the same day. Thus, the Court agrees with the NLRC that the broken period scheme employed by Seabren was made to circumvent our labor laws and avoid paying petitioners their overtime pay.
The Court also ruled that the DTRs served as valid proof of the security guards’ work hours since they were signed by Ecoland’s manager, who is in the best position to verify their attendance.