Llamada por Llamada

COMMISSION

Facts

Private respondent (Dr. Herminio A. Fabros) was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company ( PAL). He was assigned at (PAL Medical Clinic at Nichols) and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon until 12:00 midnight.

On February 17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, private respondent left the clinic to have his dinner at his residence, which was about five-minute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an emergency call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its employees, Mr. Manuel Acosta, had suffered a heart attack. Upon receiving the call the nurse on duty, Mr. Merlino Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening and was rushed by Mr. Eusebio to the hospital. When private respondent reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient. Mr. Acosta died the following day.

Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director Dr. Godofredo B. Banzon ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. The Chief Flight Surgeon, in turn, required private respondent to explain why no disciplinary sanction should be taken against him.

In his explanation, private respondent asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without waiting for him.

Finding private respondent‘s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private respondent with abandonment of post while on duty. Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not leave the company premises during such time, even to take his meals.

Issue

Whether or not being a full-time employee, private respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight (8) hours.

Ruling

NO. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they return to their post on time. Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read:

Art. 83. Normal hours of work.—The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.

Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, ―health personnel‖ shall include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel. (emphasis supplied)

Art. 85. Meal periods.—Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals.

Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further states: Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods.—Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee;

(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;

126

© In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and

(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.

Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time.

Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on time. Private respondent‘s act, therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment.

127

LINTON COMMERCIAL CO. INC. vs. HELLERA ET AL.

Facts

On 17 December 1997, Linton issued a memorandum addressed to its employees informing them of the company‘s decision to suspend its operations from December 18, 1997 to January 5, 1998 due to the currency crisis that affected its business operations. Linton submitted an establishment termination report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regarding the temporary closure of the establishment covering the said period. The company‘s operation was to resume on January 6, 1998. On January 7, 1997, Linton issued another memorandum informing them that effective January 12, 1998, it would implement a new compressed workweek of three (3) days on a rotation basis. In other words, each worker would be working on a rotation basis for three working days only instead for six days a week. On the same day, Linton submitted an establishment termination report concerning the rotation of its workers. Linton proceeded with the implementation of the new policy without waiting for its approval by DOLE. Aggrieved, sixty-eight (68) workers (workers) filed a Complaint for illegal reduction of workdays.

Issue

Whether or not there was an illegal reduction of work when Linton implemented a compressed workweek by reducing from six to three the number of working days with the employees working on a rotation basis.

Ruling

The compressed workweek arrangement was unjustified and illegal. The Bureau of Working Conditions of the DOLE, moreover, released a bulletin providing for in determining when an employer can validly reduce the regular number of working days. The said bulletin states that a reduction of the number of regular working days is valid where the arrangement is resorted to by the employer to prevent serious losses due to causes beyond his control, such as when there is a substantial slump in the demand for his goods or services or when there is lack of raw materials. Although the bulletin stands more as a set of directory guidelines than a binding set of implementing rules, it has one main consideration, consistent with the ruling in Philippine Graphic Arts Inc., in determining the validity of reduction of working hours — that the company was suffering from losses.

Certainly, management has the prerogative to come up with measures to ensure profitability or loss minimization. However, such privilege is not absolute. Management prerogative must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor. As previously stated, financial losses must be shown before a company can validly opt to reduce the work hours of its employees. However, to date, no definite guidelines have yet been set to determine whether the alleged losses are sufficient to justify the reduction of work hours. If the standards set in determining the justifiability of financial losses under Article 283 (i.e., retrenchment) or Article 286 (i.e., suspension of work) of the Labor Code were to be considered, petitioners would end up failing to meet the standards. On the one hand, Article 286 applies only when there is a bona fide suspension of the employer‘s operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months.

Records show that Linton continued its business operations during the effectivity of the compressed workweek, which spanned more than the maximum period. On the other hand, for retrenchment to be justified, any claim of actual or potential business losses must satisfy the following standards: (1) the losses incurred are substantial and not de minimis; (2) the losses are actual or reasonably imminent; (3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are proven by sufficient and convincing evidence. Linton failed to comply with these standards.

128