GR 121288; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121288 November 20, 1998
ROLANDO DELA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMMANUEL LO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando Dela Cruz was employed by private respondent Emmanuel Lo, owner of fishing boats, starting as a crew member in 1988 and eventually becoming the patron (captain) of the M/DCA “Sheenly Joy 1.” His compensation consisted of a share in the catch, a fixed monthly salary, and commissions. On December 2, 1990, he was dismissed. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint for lack of employer-employee relationship, but on appeal, the NLRC remanded the case. The reassigned Labor Arbiter found an employer-employee relationship and illegal dismissal, awarding only separation pay while dismissing all other monetary claims. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether petitioner, as a patron (captain) of a fishing vessel, is a managerial employee exempt from the coverage of provisions on overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for rest days, and service incentive leave pay under the Labor Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition in part. It upheld the finding of illegal dismissal, entitling petitioner to back wages and separation pay. However, it affirmed the dismissal of his claims for overtime and other premium pays. The Court ruled that petitioner was a managerial employee. As the patron or captain, he took complete charge and command of the vessel, performing the duties of a ship captain. Applying the four-fold test for managerial employees—primarily performing management duties, exercising independent judgment, regularly supervising a department, not devoting more than 20% of time to non-managerial work—the Court found petitioner fell within this category. Managerial employees are expressly excluded from the coverage of Title I, Book Three of the Labor Code, which governs conditions of employment including hours of work and premium pays. Therefore, as a managerial employee, petitioner was not entitled to overtime pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and service incentive leave pay. The labor arbiter’s factual finding on this classification was sustained.