The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that security guards working under a broken period scheme must be paid overtime (OT) if their break is too short for personal use.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC’s Third Division ordered Seabren Security Agency (Seabren) to compensate security guards Lorenzo Cambila Jr. and Albajar Samad for the four-hour breaks or intervals they were required to spend at work beyond their regular duty hours.
Seabren hired the security guards and assigned them to Ecoland 4000 Residences in Davao City, where they worked 12-hour shifts with a four-hour break in between. Their schedule required them to work four hours, take a four-hour break, and work another four hours.
When the security guards asked for a salary increase, Seabren ignored their request and reassigned them to a different post. Feeling forced to resign, they filed a labor complaint for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime pay.
The security guards submitted their Daily Time Records (DTRs) signed by Ecoland’s manager, proving they worked 12 continuous hours. Seabren argued that the security guards were free to leave during breaks. However, it admitted that, in practice, its security guards stayed on-site between shifts.
The labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) determined that the security guards were not wrongfully dismissed. However, they were entitled to overtime pay since they worked for 12 consecutive hours.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decisions, saying that the DTRs were invalid because Seabren had not signed them.
The SC ruled in favor of the security guards.
It found that they were able to show they worked more than eight hours and are thus entitled to overtime pay under the Labor Code, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release Feb. 28.
Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, breaks count as work hours if they are too short for personal use.
The SC decided that the four-hour breaks between the security guards’ shifts count as work hours because the guards could not use that time for themselves. “It was impractical and costly for minimum wage security guards to leave work, go home, and then come back on the same day.”
The SC held that the broken period scheme implemented by Seabren was designed to circumvent labor laws and avoid overtime pay.
The SC also ruled that the DTRs served as valid proof of the security guards’ work hours since they were signed by Ecoland’s manager, who was in the best position to verify their attendance. ||
