Carlos vs. Villegas

Firemen of the Manila Fire Department are not entitled to overtime pay for hours worked beyond the 40-hour week, because Sections 566 and 259 of the Revised Administrative Code authorize the extension of their daily hours and withhold additional compensation absent special provision, and the exigencies of their service except them from the coverage of the Forty-Hour Week Work Law.

Juanito Carlos was a member of the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire Department, whose management and control, including the organization, government, discipline, and disposition of fire forces, was vested in its chief by Section 15 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (R.A. No. 409, as amended). Respondent Antonio J. Villegas was the City Mayor, respondent Eulogio Samio the Chief of the Manila Fire Department, and respondent Manuel Cudiamat the City Treasurer. Three statutory regimes bore on the claim: the Forty-Hour Week Work Law (R.A. No. 1880), the Eight-Hour Labor Law (C.A. No. 444), and the overtime provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.

From September 16, 1957 onward, petitioner Juanito Carlos and the other members of the Uniformed Force Division of the Manila Fire Department were required and ordered by the Chief of the Manila Fire Department, upon approval of the City Mayor, the Commissioner of the Civil Service and the Office of the President, to be 24 hours on duty and 24 hours off duty alternately. A member of the division reported to his station at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and continued on duty until 8:00 o'clock of the following morning; he was then off duty for the next 24 hours immediately thereafter, and the schedule ran continuously throughout the days of the week regardless of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The arrangement kept the firemen at the station for an average of eighty-four hours a week.

While at the station, their duties were to clean and maintain the station, the fire engines or apparatuses and equipment, to respond to fire, and to perform the other duties required by ordinances and laws. During the 24-hour stay, unless they were out working to fight and extinguish fires, the firemen were given time to rest from 12:00 noon to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and time to sleep from 9:00 o'clock in the evening to 6:00 o'clock the following morning.

On July 10, 1957, the Chief of the Manila Fire Department requested the Office of the President for authority, in the interest of the service, for the members of the Uniformed Force Division and of the Fire Alarm and Radio Division of the department to render service without overtime pay beyond the 40-hour-5-day a week requirement of the law. More than five years later, on December 9, 1962, a petition was addressed to the Mayor, City of Manila, through the Chief, Fire Department, Manila, claiming payment for overtime services rendered effective January 1, 1962 and demanding the enforcement of the 40-hour a week work law with respect to the Uniformed Force Division. The reply was that services rendered beyond a regular period fixed by R.A. No. 1880 would not entitle the employee to overtime pay as a matter of legal right, citing Opinion No. 218, Series of 1957, of the Secretary of Justice. On December 26, 1962, petitioner addressed a petition to the President of the Philippines asking that the City of Manila be ordered to pay the overtime services rendered during 1962 and that the 40-hour a week law be enforced, but there was no favorable reply.

On January 4, 1963, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 53514, seeking to order the respondents to cause the City of Manila to pay petitioner and the other members of the Uniformed Force Division for overtime services rendered from January 1, 1962 up to the filing of the petition, to enforce immediately the 40-Hour a Week Work Law to petitioner and the other members of the MFD, and to pay the damages sustained by them as a consequence of the acts complained of. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts and reserved the right to submit additional evidence should a necessity therefor arise, but no additional evidence was submitted thereafter. On the stipulation and the law applicable thereon, the lower court dismissed the petition.

• Repeal of the Revised Administrative Code Provisions: Petitioner contended that the portions of the Revised Administrative Code relied upon by the respondents have been repealed by the provisions of Commonwealth Act 444, the Eight-Hour Labor Law, in so far as the former are inconsistent with the latter.
• Applicability of the Labor Laws: Petitioner suggested that the provisions of law resolving the issue are those of Republic Act 1880, the Forty Hour Week Work Law, and Commonwealth Act 444, the Eight-Hour Labor Law.

• Overtime Pay for Firemen: Whether petitioner-appellant and other firemen similarly situated are entitled to collect overtime pay for overtime services rendered by them since January 1, 1962.
• Representation by the City Fiscal: Whether the City Fiscal of Manila should continue his appearance for the respondents-appellees despite the creation of the office and appointment of a City Legal Officer of Manila under Republic Act 5185, the Decentralization Act of 1967.

• Overtime Pay for Firemen: No. Sections 566 and 259 of the Revised Administrative Code authorize the extension of working hours and bar additional compensation absent special provision, and the exigencies of the firefighting service except firemen from the Forty-Hour Week Work Law.
• Representation by the City Fiscal: The SC declined to pass upon the question. The motion for withdrawal of appearance and the opposition thereto put in issue the validity of a city ordinance allegedly in conflict with R.A. No. 5185, and the motion was filed on May 19, 1968, long after the case had been rested for resolution on August 18, 1965.

• Overtime Pay for Firemen: The provisions that resolve the issue are neither those of R.A. No. 1880 nor those of C.A. No. 444, but Sections 566 and 259 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 566 empowers the head of any Department, Bureau, or Office to extend the daily hours of labor, however fixed, when the interests of the public service so require, and to require overtime work not only on work days but also on holidays. Section 259 provides that, in the absence of special provision, persons regularly and permanently appointed under the Civil Service Law or whose salary, wages or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation shall not receive additional compensation for service rendered on holidays or for other overtime work. The SC had explicitly declared that the Eight-Hour Labor Law was not intended to apply to civil service employees still governed by these provisions, and there was no debate that petitioner and the other firemen fell under the civil service, being employees of the City of Manila, a municipal corporation, in its governmental capacity; no reason appeared to deviate from that ruling. Because those sections remain legally in force, Rule XV, section 3 of the Civil Service Rules, promulgated pursuant to Section 16(e) of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260), likewise applies: the head of a department or agency may extend the daily hours of work when the nature of the duties or the interest of the public service requires, and the extension is without additional compensation unless otherwise provided by law. The nature of a fireman's work requires him to be always on the alert to respond to fire alarms at any time of the day, and the exigency of the service necessitates a round-the-clock observance of his duties, which excepts him from Section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by R.A. No. 1880, whose own text carves out the case "where the exigencies of service so require." Department of Public Services Labor Union vs. CIR, et al. is parallel: garbage collectors in Manila were held not entitled to the benefits of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law in view of the exigency of the service. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that petitioner and the other firemen of his situation are not entitled to overtime pay and to the coverage of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law.
• Representation by the City Fiscal: The question of whether the City Fiscal should continue his appearance despite the creation of the office of City Legal Officer under R.A. No. 5185 is not one the SC should first pass upon in this appeal, because the motion for withdrawal of appearance filed by the City Fiscal and the opposition thereto put at issue the validity of an ordinance passed by the City Council of Manila alleged to be in conflict with the Decentralization Act. In any event, the motion was filed only on May 19, 1968, long after August 18, 1965, when the case had been rested for resolution and when there was no more need for further representation in behalf of the parties.

• Eight-Hour Labor Law does not apply to civil service employees — C.A. No. 444 was not intended to cover civil service employees, who remain governed by Sections 566 and 259 of the Revised Administrative Code. The SC applied this to Manila firemen because they are employees of the City of Manila, a municipal corporation, acting in its governmental capacity, and are therefore under the civil service.
• Exigencies-of-service exception to the 40-hour week — Section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by R.A. No. 1880, fixes eight hours a day for five days a week but expressly excepts schools, courts, hospitals and health clinics, and cases "where the exigencies of service so require." Firemen fall under the exception because their work demands round-the-clock alertness to respond to fire alarms at any time of the day.
• No extra compensation absent special provision — Section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code bars additional compensation for overtime work to persons regularly and permanently appointed under the Civil Service Law, or whose salary is fixed by law or regulation, unless a special provision grants it. No such special provision existed for the Manila firemen, so the 24-hour-on/24-hour-off schedule carried no overtime pay.
• Extension of hours in the public interest — Section 566 of the Revised Administrative Code allows the head of a department, bureau or office to extend daily hours of labor, however fixed, and to require overtime work on work days and holidays when the interests of the public service so require. This supplied the affirmative authority for the Chief of the Manila Fire Department's order, issued with the approval of the City Mayor, the Commissioner of the Civil Service and the Office of the President.

• "When the interests of the public service so require, the head of any Department, Bureau, or Office may extend the daily hours of labor, in what manner so ever fixed, for any or all of the employees under him, and may likewise require any or all of them to do overtime work not only on work days but also on holidays." — Section 566 of the Revised Administrative Code, the provision the SC held governs the firemen's hours instead of the labor laws invoked by petitioner.
• "the Eight-Hour Labor Law was not intended to apply to civil service employees who are still governed by the above provisions of the Revised Administrative Code." — The SC's restatement of its prior ruling, made the premise for denying that C.A. No. 444 repealed the administrative code provisions on overtime.
• "the nature of work of a fireman requires him to be always on the alert to respond to fire alarms which may occur at any time of the day, for the exigency of the service necessitates a round-the-clock observance of his duties, which situation excepts him from the applicability of Section 562 of the Revised Administrative Code" — The core application holding, bringing firemen within the exigencies-of-service exception to the 40-hour week.
• "the conclusion is inevitable that the petitioner-appellant and other firemen of his situation are not entitled to overtime pay and to the coverage of the said Forty-Hour a Week Work Law." — The ratio decidendi in canonical form, disposing of the entire claim for overtime compensation.

• Namarco vs. Prisco Workers Union, et al. vs. CIR, L-19945, Dec. 29, 1966 — Controlling precedent, cited for the rule that the Eight-Hour Labor Law was not intended to apply to civil service employees still governed by the Revised Administrative Code.
• Nawasa vs. NWSA Consolidated Unions, et al., L-18938, Aug. 31, 1964 — The authority underlying Namarco, cited through it for the same civil service exemption.
• Department of Public Services Labor Union vs. CIR, et al., G.R. No. L-15458, January 28, 1961 — Declared parallel to the instant case; held that garbage collectors in Manila are not entitled to the benefits of the Forty-Hour a Week Work Law in view of the exigency of the service.

• Section 566, Revised Administrative Code — Authorizes the head of a Department, Bureau, or Office to extend daily hours of labor and to require overtime work on work days and holidays when the interests of the public service so require; applied as the affirmative basis for the 24-hour-on/24-hour-off schedule.
• Section 259, Revised Administrative Code — Bars additional compensation for overtime work to persons regularly and permanently appointed under the Civil Service Law, or whose salary is fixed by law or regulation, absent special provision; applied to deny the firemen's claim for overtime pay.
• Section 562, Revised Administrative Code, as amended by R.A. No. 1880 (Forty-Hour Week Work Law) — Fixes eight hours a day for five days a week, exclusive of lunch, but excepts schools, courts, hospitals and health clinics and cases where the exigencies of service so require; the firemen were held to fall under the exception.
• Commonwealth Act No. 444 (Eight-Hour Labor Law) — Held not to have repealed the Revised Administrative Code provisions on overtime and not applicable to civil service employees such as the Manila firemen.
• Rule XV, Section 3, Civil Service Rules, promulgated under Section 16(e), R.A. No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) — Allows the head of a department or agency to extend daily hours of work when the nature of the duties or the interest of the public service requires, without additional compensation unless otherwise provided by law; held applicable to petitioner.
• Section 15, R.A. No. 409 (Revised Charter of the City of Manila, as amended) — Vests in the chief of the Fire Department the management and control of all matters relating to the administration of the department and the organization, government, discipline, and disposition of fire forces; the source of the authority behind the challenged duty schedule.
• R.A. No. 5185 (Decentralization Act of 1967) — Created the office of City Legal Officer of Manila; the SC declined to resolve the representation question because doing so would require passing on the validity of a city ordinance allegedly in conflict with this statute.