Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-64967 September 23, 198
ENG!NEER!NG E"U!PMENT, !NC., petitioner,
vs.
M!N!STER O# L$%OR, &!RECTOR O# EMPLO'MENT SER(!CES )*+ M!GUEL (.
$SPER$, respondents.

$"U!NO, J:
his is a clai! for overti!e pa". Mi#uel $spera, a !echanical en#ineer, %or&ed for
En#ineerin# E'uip!ent, Inc. in Saudi $rabia for nearl" a "ear fro! $pril (), *+,, to
$pril *), *+,- at a !onthl" salar" of P,./ 0P-)/1 %ith a si23da" %or& %ee& consistin#
of ten %or&in# hours. 4is %ritten contract of e!plo"!ent provides5
*. Work Schedule/Assignment. ... 6our %or&da"s shall be on a si23da"
%or& %ee& basis, %ith a %or&in# da" consistin# of ten 0*/1 %or&in#
hours. 6ou !a" be re'uired to %or& overti!e in e2cess of ten 0*/1
hours each %or& da" and to %or& on "our restda"s and on Saudi
$rabian le#al holida"s.
(. $ !onthl" salar" of P,./.// plus overti!e pa" for %or& rendered
durin# restda"s7holida"s and7or in e2cess of ten 0*/1 hours durin#
re#ular %or&in# da"s.
$spera %or&ed ten hours dail" for 88. %or&in# da"s. 4e clai!s that his !onthl" salar"
should correspond to ei#ht hours of dail" %or& and that for the additional t%o hours
dail", he %as entitled to overti!e pa" at 9*.(*)( per hour or to 9-*:.-. for ),/ hours
durin# 88. %or&in# da"s.
he Director of E!plo"!ent Services and the National ;abor Relations Co!!ission
sustained his clai! and a%arded hi! that a!ount as overti!e pa". he" declared void
the stipulation for a ten3hour %or&in# da" because it %as contrar" to Section -8 of the
;abor Code, for!erl" Ei#ht34our ;abor ;a%, %hich e2pressl" provides that <the nor!al
hours of %or& of an" e!plo"ee shall not e2ceed ei#ht 0-1 hours a da"< and to section -,
of the sa!e Code %hich provides that %or& perfor!ed <be"ond ei#ht 0-1 hours a da"< is
treated as overti!e %or&,
4ence, this recourse b" the petitioner. It contends that $spera %as a !ana#erial
e!plo"ee e2ercisin# supervision and control over its ran&3and3file e!plo"ees %ith
po%er to reco!!end disciplinar" action or their dis!issal. Section -( of the ;abor Code
provides that !ana#erial e!plo"ees are not entitled to overti!e pa".
It also asserts that $spera %as one of several e!plo"ees %ho si#ned %ritten contracts
%ith a <built3in< overti!e pa" in the ten3hour %or&in# da" and that their basic !onthl"
pa" %as ad=usted to reflect the hi#her a!ount coverin# the #uaranteed t%o3hour e2tra
ti!e %hether %or&ed or un%or&ed.
Moreover, it ar#ues that the contracts %ere sub!itted to >ES Director ?onathan M.R.$.
de la Cru@, the same director who rendered the questioned decision He approved the
same. Aithout his approval, the petitioner %ould not have stipulated the ten3hour %or&
schedule and %ould have provided for a lo%er basic salar" for an ei#ht3hour %or&in#
da".
In addition to his salar" $spera %as #iven free board and lod#in# %hile in Saudi $rabia
and free transportation in #oin# to and returnin# fro! that countr".
Ae hold that under the particular circu!stances of this case the $ctin# Minister of ;abor
and Director De la Cru@ co!!itted a #rave abuse of discretion a!ountin# to lac& of
=urisdiction in a%ardin# overti!e pa" and in disre#ardin# a contract that De la Cru@
hi!self, %ho is supposed to &no% the Ei#ht34our ;abor ;a%, had previousl" sealed %ith
his i!pri!atur. >ecause of that approval, the petitioner acted in #ood faith in enforcin#
the contract.
Burther!ore, $spera had not denied that he %as a !ana#erial e!plo"ee %ithin the
!eanin# of section -(. $s such, he %as not entitled to overti!e pa".
A4EREBORE, the resolution of the $ctin# Minister of ;abor dated Nove!ber *), *+-*
is reversed and set aside. $speraCs co!plaint is dis!issed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
1