G.R. No. L-17068, December 30, 1961
National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), petitioner, vs. Court of Industrial Relations and Dominador Malondras, respondents.

FACTS

The National Shipyards and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), a government-owned corporation, employed Dominador Malondras as a bargeman. Due to the exigencies of the service, bargemen were required to stay on their vessels and were provided living quarters and a daily subsistence allowance of P1.50, enabling them to be immediately available for duty. In 1957, Malondras and other crew members filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for unpaid overtime compensation. The parties entered into a stipulation of facts wherein NASSCO admitted that petitioners worked in excess of eight hours daily and on holidays without additional pay. Based on this stipulation, the CIR ordered an examination of records to compute overtime.
The court examiner initially computed overtime for the crew, including Malondras, for 1957 at an average of five hours daily, which NASSCO paid. A subsequent report for 1954-1956 also credited other crewmen with five daily overtime hours, but Malondras was excluded as his time sheets were unavailable. When his records were later located, Malondras petitioned for his overtime pay for 1954-1956 and part of 1957. A re-examination of his time sheets led an examiner to credit him with sixteen overtime hours daily. The CIR approved this amended report, ordering NASSCO to pay a substantial sum. NASSCO appealed, contesting the sixteen-hour computation.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the CIR correctly computed Malondras’s overtime compensation at sixteen hours per day based solely on his daily time sheets.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the CIR’s order. It held that crediting Malondras with sixteen hours of overtime daily was erroneous. The Court reasoned that the time sheets, while approved by NASSCO officers, did not reflect actual hours worked but merely indicated his presence on the barge as required for immediate duty. The stipulation of facts acknowledged overtime work but did not specify sixteen hours. Crucially, the Court found that Malondras’s situation was identical to his co-employees who had already been paid overtime based on a uniform average of five hours per day for the same periods. There was no justification to treat Malondras differently merely because his records were initially missing. Justice and equity demanded uniformity; thus, his overtime should also be computed at five hours daily.
On ancillary matters, the Court ruled that the subsistence allowance should not be deducted from overtime pay, as it was a separate benefit for on-board living requirements and had not been deducted from other crewmen’s overtime. Finally, the Court ordered a re-examination to determine Malondras’s exact daily wage from January to September 1954, as the record suggested his rate increased in October 1954, and overtime for that earlier period should be computed based on the correct lower rate. The CIR’s order was affirmed in all other respects.