CHARLITO PEARANDA, Petitioner, vs. BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION and HUDSON CHUA, Respondents. G.R. No.

159577; May 3, 2006 FACTS: June 1999 o Petitioner Charlito Pearanda was hired by Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. o Pearanda was employed as a Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer tasked to do the following tasks among others: 1. To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost. 2. To supervise, check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories. 3. To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower. 4. To follow-up supply of waste and other materials for fuel. 5. To train new employees for effective and safety while working. 6. Recommend parts and supplies purchases. 7. To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion, or disciplinary action. 8. To check water from the boiler, feedwater and softener, regenerate softener if beyond hardness limit. 9. Implement Chemical Dosing. 10. Perform other task as required by the superior from time to time." BPC shut down due to some repairs and maintenance and it applied for clearance with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. XI to shut down and to dismiss employees Due to the insistence of petitioner, he was paid his separation benefits January 2001 o BPC partially reopened and petitioner failed to reapply May 2001 o Pearanda filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against BPC and its general manager, Hudson Chua, before the NLRC o He claims that his services were terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds in accordance with law. Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no illegal dismissal and that petitioners Complaint was premature because he was still employed by BPC. The temporary closure of BPCs plant did not terminate his employment, so there is no need to reapply. NLRC deleted the award of overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days and stated that petitioner was not entitled to these awards because he was a managerial employee. January 27, 2003 o CA dismissed Pearandas Petition for Certiorari. The appellate court held that he failed to: 1) attach copies of the pleadings submitted before the labor arbiter and NLRC; and 2) explain why the filing and service of the Petition was not done by personal service. July 4, 2003 o CA denied reconsideration on the ground that petitioner still failed to submit the pleadings filed before the NLRC. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not Pearanda is a regular, common employee entitled to monetary benefits under Art. 82 of the Labor Code.

2.

Whether or not Pearanda is entitled to overtime and premium pay.

HELD: I. Nature of Employment NO. He was not a managerial employee but a member of the managerial staff. Under the provision of Article 82 of the Labor Code managerial employees are those who meet the following conditions: 1. Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof; 2. They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein; 3. They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. Petitioner does not meet the conditions above-stated but he met the following conditions that a member of the managerial staff performs under the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code: 1. The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer; 2. Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment; 3. (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks; and 4. who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above. Further, from the above-mentioned tasks of the petitioner, items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 illustrates that he was a member of the managerial staff. The petitioner also admitted in his Position Paper, he was the foreman responsible for the operation of the boiler. The term foreman implies that he was the representative of management over the workers and the operation of the department. Lastly, petitioners evidence showed that he supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. o His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. o Petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff. o His classification as supervisor is further evident from the manner his salary was paid. He belonged to the 10% of respondents 354 employees who were paid on a monthly basis; the others were paid only on a daily basis.

II.

NO. Petitioner was NOT awarded overtime pay and premium pay for rest days to petitioner.