Union of Sual Power Plant Employees v Team Sual
Corporation| March 2016 | Villarama Jr., , J. | | by Jasper
FACTS:
● Petitioners Rey J. Bual and Ernesto G. Cardona, Sr.,
represented by Union of Sual Power Plant
Employees, were regular employees of respondent
Team Sual Corporation, a corporation engaged in
the business of providing electric power.
● They were scaffolders in the maintenance
department under Supervisor Joseleo E. Vicaldo.
● TSC issued its SSO-050 Station Standing order on
On-Call and Call-out Provisions. Section IV of its
Implementing Guidelines states, among others,
that the Company shall compensate an employee
accordingly for on-call and call-out work rendered
beyond regular work hours.
● Vicaldo entered into an agreement with Bual and
Cardona
● Bual and Cardona will alternate monthly during call
out (being called at night to work without notifying
you earlier in the day. - Unscheduled or Emergency
Call)
● Supervisor will coordinate with transport to fetch
the scaffolder at their residence during call-out.
(Incoming and Outgoing).
● Inform co-supervisor regarding our agreement
during call-out.
● Scaffolder on duty for call-out shall activate his
cellphone 24 hours.
● There shall be one regular scaffolder on duty during
regular time when there is a call-out at night.
● If ever that you have a commitment or are sick, and
you are on assigned call-out for the month, inform
supervisor and co-scaffolder regarding this
beforehand. Co-scaffolder shall be the duty call-
out.
● Bual and Cardona brought the matter of their
agreement to the USPPE claiming that they should
have been paid for their waiting time during their
duty for the call-out. They sought USPPE's
assistance to file a complaint against TSC for non-
compensation of on-call services for more than one
and a half years.
● USPPE then referred the complaint to the
Grievance Machinery, claimed entitlement to 5,002
hours of overtime pay or P1,294,707.56 for Bual
and 4,636 hours of overtime pay or P1,132,561.86
for Cardona.
● USPPE brought the case before the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board where the parties
agreed to submit the same for Voluntary
Arbitration.
● Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator
● Bual and Cardona could not claim that they were on
"on-call" or on waiting time.
● Did not find anything to support their claim that
they were deprived of their time to move freely and
far away from their respective places of residence
and in their claim that they were confined to the
four corners of their houses waiting for anytime, a
call for their needed servicces at the Plant, which
amounted to "house confinement or house arrest"
● Reading of the subject agreement would show that
if the assigned scaffolder was not available, all he
had to do was just inform his supervisor and
another would take his place.
● Fact that they were required to turn on their
cellular phone 24-7 did not constitute overtime
work as it was merely a means of communication in
case work would be needed to be rendered.
● CA: dismissed for being wrong remedy
● Petitioners argued that Bual and Cardona were so
restricted during the on-call/call-out times that
they could not perform any other work except to
wait.
● Thus, they submitted that the time spent waiting
for notice to work at night even without earlier
notice during the day should be compensated.
● For having been rendered in excess of the eight-
hour workday, said hours should be compensable
as overtime work.
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. WON Bual and Cardona were considered as
"working while on call" and entitled to on-call
services. – NO
a. Petitioners failed to establish their claim
for their allegedly "on-call" services.
There was no showing that they were
deprived of their time to move freely far
away from their respective place of
residence.
i. Issue involves a question of fact.
It is settled that the Court is not
a trier of facts.
ii. Individual complainants and the
Union failed to adduce evidence
that would qualify them to be
considered as "working while on
call."
iii. Company has clearly
demonstrated its policy
regarding "on-call" and "call-
out."
2. WON individual complainants became entitled to
"on-call" pay by virtue of the Agreement they
entered with Mr. Joseleo Vicaldo, their supervisor.
- NO
a. Complainants maintain that the
Agreement modified the on-call/call-out
policy. We disagree.
i. Waiting time spent by the
employee shall be considered as
working time if waiting is an
integral part of his work or the
employee is required or engaged
by the employer to wait.
ii. employee who is required to
remain on call in the employer's
premises or so close thereto that
he cannot use the time
effectively and gainfully for his
 own purpose, shall be
considered as working while on-
call.
iii. Here, as aptly pointed out by
respondent, even if Bual and
Cardona were on call, they were
not deprived of the time to
attend to their personal pursuits;
their physical presence were not
required in ?TSC's premises; and
were not subjected to the
absolute control of TSC during
the period they were on call,
such that their failure to report
would justify the TSC to impose
?disciplinary measures.
iv. Thus, such time cannot be
considered as compensable
waiting time, notwithstanding
the fact that they were required
to activate their mobile phones
24 hours.
v. Petitioners' failure to follow the
procedure provided for under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
was?fatal to their cause. An
appeal taken to the CA by the
wrong or inappropriate mode
shall? be dismissed.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari

is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 26, 2007 and
the Resolution dated January 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No.
96153 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that only
petitioner corporation is found GUILTY of the illegal
dismissal of respondent Joselito A. Caro. Petitioner Edgardo
A. Bautista is not held personally liable as then President of
petitioner corporation at the time of the illegal dismissal.