G.R. No. L-4337 - DECEMBER 1951 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4337December 29, 1951 Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-4140-4141December 29, 1951 Bernardo S. Duñgao vs. Angel Roque, et al. G.R. No. L-3569December 29, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Rosalina Peña, et al. G.R. No. L-4461December 28, 1951 Francisca Quizan vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. G.R. No. L-4224December 28, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Felicisimo Canoy, et al. G.R. No. L-4159December 28, 1951 Efren V. Mendoza vs. Agustin Montesa, et al. G.R. No. L-4013December 28, 1951 James MCL. Henderson vs. Jose Garrido, et al. G.R. No. L-3934December 28, 1951 Maria C. Arvisu vs. Matias E. Vergara, et al. G.R. No. L-3624December 28, 1951 Tan Seng Hoo, et al. vs. Manuel dela Fuente, et al. G.R. No. L-4791December 27, 1951 Republic of the Philippines vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. G.R. No. L-3863December 27, 1951 In Re: Ang Yee Koe Sengkee Ang Yee Koe Sengkee vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3616December 27, 1951 In Re: Efipiano Pabustan Atanacia Mallari vs. Juan dela Cruz, et als. G.R. No. L-2963-4December 27, 1951 Hermogenes C. Fernando vs. German Crisostomo, et al. G.R. No. L-3935December 21, 1951 Teofilo Abeto vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3846December 21, 1951 In Re: Margarita David Carlos M. Sison vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-3587December 21, 1951 Tiong King vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-4187December 18, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico Corpes, et al. G.R. No. L-4276December 17, 1951 Soledad Olvido, et al. vs. Mamerto Ferraris, et al. G.R. No. L-4169December 17, 1951 Republica de Filipinas vs. Paticio C. Ceniza, et al. G.R. No. L-3885December 17, 1951 Bachrach Motor Co. Inc. vs. Lee Tay & Lee Chay, Inc. G.R. No. L-2990December 17, 1951 Oscar M. Espuelas vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3925December 14, 1951 Jose Tan vs. Manuel dela Fuente, et al. G.R. No. L-4414December 12, 1951 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Teodoro Pinuela, et al. G.R. No. L-2317December 12, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Marcelo Gorospe G.R. No. L-5153December 10, 1951 Glicerio Mangoma vs. Higino Macadaeg, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Bernardo S. Duñgao vs. Angel Roque, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rosalina Peña, et al. Francisca Quizan vs. Francisco Arellano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felicisimo Canoy, et al. Efren V. Mendoza vs. Agustin Montesa, et al. James MCL. Henderson vs. Jose Garrido, et al. Maria C. Arvisu vs. Matias E. Vergara, et al. Tan Seng Hoo, et al. vs. Manuel dela Fuente, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Cirilo C. Maceren, et al. In Re: Ang Yee Koe Sengkee Ang Yee Koe Sengkee vs. Republic of the Philippines In Re: Efipiano Pabustan Atanacia Mallari vs. Juan dela Cruz, et als. Hermogenes C. Fernando vs. German Crisostomo, et al. Teofilo Abeto vs. People of the Philippines In Re: Margarita David Carlos M. Sison vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Tiong King vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico Corpes, et al. Soledad Olvido, et al. vs. Mamerto Ferraris, et al. Republica de Filipinas vs. Paticio C. Ceniza, et al. Bachrach Motor Co. Inc. vs. Lee Tay & Lee Chay, Inc. Oscar M. Espuelas vs. People of the Philippines Jose Tan vs. Manuel dela Fuente, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Teodoro Pinuela, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marcelo Gorospe Glicerio Mangoma vs. Higino Macadaeg, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4337         December 29, 1951

DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION,respondents.

Crispin D. Baizas for petitioner.
Gregorio E. Fajardo for respondent Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc.
Emilio Lopez for respondent Court of Industrial Relations.

BENGZON,J.:

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 and 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 he 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.lawphil.net

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 property 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 voidab 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 give them the right to extra compensation. And they could not be held to haveimpliedlywaived such extra compensation, for the obvious reason that they could not haveexpresslywaived 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 setting disputes between employer and employee.¹As a matter of fact this Court has confirmed an order of the Court of Industrial Relations requiring the Elks' 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 the said court. (45 O.G. 3829).

Again it is urged that no recovery may be had for work beyond the 8-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 (85 PHIL., 291).

Wherefore, inasmuch as the petitioner does not raise the question that the amount determined by the Court does not accord the number of extra hour 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.

Footnotes