LCP

SUBJECT: Crim
TOPIC: Title VII

Manila Terminal Company, Inc. v The Industrial Relations Court

GR. No. L-1881, May 9, 1949

GENERAL RULE OF LAW/DOCTRINE

FACTS

FACTS
- Manila Terminal Company, Inc. hereinafter to be referred as to the petitioner, undertook the arrastre service in some of
the piers in Manila's Port Area at the request and under the control of the United States Army. The petitioner hired
some thirty men as watchmen on twelve-hour shifts at a compensation of P3 per day for the day shift and P6 per day
for the night shift.

- The watchmen of the petitioner continued in the service with a number of substitutions and additions, their salaries
having been raised during the month of February to P4 per day for the day shift and P6.25 per day for the nightshift.
The private respondent sent a letter to Department of Labor requesting that the matter of overtime pay be investigated.
But nothing was done by the Dept of Labor.

- Later on, the petitioner instituted the system of strict eight-hour shifts.

- The private respondent filed an amended petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying, among others, that the
petitioner be ordered to pay its watchmen or police force overtime pay from the commencement of their employment.

- By virtue of Customs Administrative Order No. 81 and Executive Order No. 228 of the President of the Philippines, the
entire police force of the petitioner was consolidated with the Manila Harvor Police of the Customs Patrol Service, a
Government agency under the exclusive control of the Commissioner of Customs and the Secretary of Finance The
Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association will hereafter be referred to as the Association.

- Judge V. Jimenez Yanson of the Court of Industrial Relations in his decision ordered the petitioner to pay to its police
force but regards to overtime service after the watchmen had been integrated into the Manila Harbor Police, the has no
jurisdiction because it affects the Bureau of Customs, an instrumentality of the Government having no independent
personality and which cannot be sued without the consent of the State.
- The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The Association also filed a motion for reconsideration in so far its
other demands were dismissed. Both resolutions were denied.

- The public respondent decision was to pay the private respondents their overtime on regular days at the regular rate
and additional amount of 25 percent, overtime on Sundays and legal holidays at the regular rate only, and watchmen
are not entitled to night differential pay for past services. The petitioner has filed a present petition for certiorari.

ISSUES AND RULINGS

ISSUE
- WON overtime pay should be granted to the workers

HELD
YES
- Petitioner stressed that the contract between it and the Association stipulates 12 hrs a day at certain rates including
overtime, but the record does not bear out these allegations.
- In times of acute employment, people go from office to office to search for work, and the workers here found
themselves required to render 12 hrs a day. True, there was an agreement, but did the workers have freedom to
bargain much less insist in the observance of the Eight Hour Labor Law?
- We note that after petitioner instituted 8 hr shifts, no reduction was made in salaries which its watchmen received
under the 12 hr agreement.
- Petitioner’s allegation that the Association had acquiesced in the 12 hr shifts for more than 18 mos is not accurate.
Only one of the members entered in September 1945. The rest followed during the next few months.
- The Association can’t be said to have impliedly waived the right to overtime pay, for the obvious reason that it could
not have expressly waived it.
- Estoppel and laches can’t also be invoked against Association. First, it is contrary to spirit of the Eight Hour Labor
Law. Second, law obligates employer to observe it. Third, employee is at a disadvantage as to be reluctant in
asserting any claim.
- The argument that the nullity of the employment contract precludes recovery by the Association of overtime pay is
untenable. The employer may not be heard to plead its own neglect as exemption or defense.
1
<CRIM>
<Manila Terminal Company. Inc v CIR> by <James Harvey T. Dinoy>
 LCP

- Also, Commonwealth Act 444 expressly provides for payment of extra compensation in cases where overtime services
are required.
- The point that payment of overtime pay may lead to ruin of the petitioner can’t be accepted. It is significant that not all
watchmen should receive back overtime pay for the whole period, since the members entered the firm in different
times.
- The Eight-Hour Labor Law was designed not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the laborer or employee, but
in a way to minimize unemployment by forcing employers, in cases where more than 8-hour operation is necessary, to
utilize different shifts of laborers or employees working only for eight hours each.
RELEVANT LAWS APPLICABLE

2
<CRIM>
<Manila Terminal Company. Inc v CIR> by <James Harvey T. Dinoy>