G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968
JUANITO CARLOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, as Mayor, City of Manila and/or EULOGIO SAMIO, as Chief, Manila Fire Department and/or MANUEL CUDIAMAT, as Treasurer, City of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Juanito Carlos, for himself and other members of the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire Department (MFD), filed a petition for mandamus. They sought to compel the respondents to pay for overtime services rendered from January 1, 1962, to enforce the 40-Hour a Week Work Law for them, and to pay damages. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. It established that, pursuant to the City Charter and upon approval by the City Mayor, the Civil Service Commission, and the Office of the President, the firemen were required to be on a 24-hour on-duty and 24-hour off-duty schedule since September 16, 1957. This schedule averaged 84 hours a week at the station, where their duties included cleaning, maintenance, and responding to fires. During their 24-hour stay, they were given time to rest and sleep. The Chief of the MFD had requested and received authority from the Office of the President for these members to render service beyond the 40-hour week without overtime pay. The petitioners’ subsequent demands for overtime pay and enforcement of the 40-hour law were denied, citing a Justice Secretary’s opinion that such services did not entitle them to overtime pay as a matter of legal right.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner-appellant and other similarly situated firemen are entitled to collect overtime pay for overtime services rendered since January 1, 1962, and to be covered by the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the petition. The Court ruled that the applicable laws are Sections 566 and 259 of the Revised Administrative Code, not Republic Act No. 1880 (Forty-Hour Week Work Law) or Commonwealth Act No. 444 (Eight-Hour Labor Law). Section 566 allows department heads to extend hours and require overtime work when the public service requires it, and Section 259 prohibits payment of extra compensation for overtime work to civil service employees in the absence of special provision. The Court cited precedent that the Eight-Hour Labor Law does not apply to civil service employees. Since the firemen are civil service employees of the City of Manila, these provisions govern. Furthermore, Rule XV, Section 3 of the Civil Service Rules, which allows for extended hours without additional compensation, is also applicable. The nature of a fireman’s work, which requires constant alertness to respond to emergencies at any time, constitutes an “exigency of the service” that excepts them from the coverage of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law, as explicitly provided in Section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended. The Court found the circumstances parallel to a prior case involving garbage collectors, who were also denied the law’s benefits due to the exigencies of their service. Therefore, the firemen are not entitled to overtime pay or to the benefits of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law.