Katolec Philippines Corp. Labor Union-Philippine Metalworkers Alliance v. Katolec Philippines Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235667. August 13, 2018.]

KATOLEC PHILIPPINES CORPORATION LABOR UNION-PHILIPPINE METALWORKERS ALLIANCE [KAPLU-PMA], petitioner, vs.KATOLEC PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 13, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 235667 (Katolec Philippines Corporation Labor Union-Philippine Metalworkers Alliance [KAPLU-PMA] v. Katolec Philippines Corporation). — After review, we resolve to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision dated June 27, 2017 and Resolution dated November 16, 2017.

We agree with the CA in affirming the Department of Labor and Employment Decision that the shortened meal period voluntarily agreed upon by respondent and its employees is not compensable under the Labor Code and its Omnibus Rules and Regulations. The governing rule is Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules, which states, to wit:

Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods. — Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee:

(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;

(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen (16) hours a day;

(c) In case of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and

(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.

Under this rule, the shortened meal period is compensable when one of the four instances is present. In this case, however, there is no showing that any of these instances obtains. The CA is correct in ruling that the rules do not bar the parties from entering into a voluntary agreement which, when taken as a whole, complies with the provisions of the Labor Code, as in this case. The reasoning is all the more sensible considering that under the facts of this case, the CA made a finding that the agreement was even more favorable to the employees because the compensable 10-minute morning and afternoon breaks will give them more time to rest.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 27, 2017 and Resolution dated November 16, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 145249 are AFFIRMED.

The petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated March 21, 2018, submitting the certified true copies of the Decision dated June 27, 2017 and Resolution dated November 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals, and a USB containing the PDF file of the signed petition for review on certiorari and its annexes, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court