G.R. No. L-4337, December 29, 1951
Case Parties:

DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, respondents.

FACTS

The United Employees Welfare Association (Association), composed of security guards employed by the Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc. (Bureau), filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR investigated and found that the Bureau employed the Association’s members, paying them monthly salaries from fees collected from client establishments. The employees were required to work daily tours exceeding eight hours and also on Sundays and holidays without receiving extra overtime compensation. Upon the CIR’s order, an audit of the Bureau’s books computed the overtime back wages due to the employees at P8,545.48. The Bureau was ordered to pay this amount. The Bureau contended that the monthly grant of “two days off” with pay constituted compensation for the overtime work. The CIR rejected this defense.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to award money judgments for overtime back wages.
2. Whether the employees impliedly waived their right to overtime pay by not claiming it earlier and by accepting “two days off” with pay.
3. Whether overtime work performed without a permit from the Secretary of Labor precludes recovery of extra compensation.

RULING

1. Yes, the CIR has jurisdiction. Under Commonwealth Act No. 103 , the CIR is empowered to settle disputes between employers and employees, which includes issuing orders for the payment of money, such as overtime back wages. This Court had previously affirmed a similar CIR order against the Elks’ Club.
2. No, the employees did not waive their right. The right to extra compensation is granted by law (the Eight-Hour Law, Act No. 444 ). The employees could not have validly waived this right expressly, and thus no implied waiver could arise. The monthly grant of “two days off” with pay was not agreed upon as compensation for overtime and, even if it were, such an agreement would likely be void as contrary to the Eight-Hour Law.
3. No, the lack of a permit does not bar recovery. Following the precedent in Gotamco Lumber Co. vs. CIR, Commonwealth Act No. 444 places the duty to secure the required permit for overtime work on the employer. The employer cannot plead its own neglect in failing to obtain the permit as a defense against the employee’s claim. The employee, in rendering extra service at the employer’s request, has the right to assume the employer has complied with the law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed order of the Court of Industrial Relations is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner Detective and Protective Bureau, Inc.