The Supreme Court ruled that Daily Time Records (DTRs) signed by a client’s manager can serve as valid proof of overtime work for security guards, even without the security agency’s signature. This decision underscores the importance of accurate timekeeping and fair compensation for overtime, reinforcing that security agencies must properly compensate guards for hours worked beyond the standard eight-hour workday. The ruling ensures that security guards are rightfully paid for their actual working hours, preventing employers from circumventing labor laws through schemes like uncredited ‘broken periods’.

Broken Promises: Can a Client’s Signature Validate Security Guard Overtime Claims?

This case revolves around a dispute between Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad, former security guards, and their employer, Seabren Security Agency. The central question is whether DTRs signed by the client’s manager, rather than the security agency, can sufficiently prove that the security guards rendered overtime work. The petitioners, Cambila and Samad, claimed they regularly worked twelve-hour shifts without proper overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and 13th-month pay. Seabren Security Agency, however, argued that the guards worked under a ‘broken period’ arrangement, where they had a four-hour break, thus not entitling them to overtime. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the validity of the DTRs as evidence and the corresponding entitlement to overtime pay.

In resolving this issue, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that labor laws are construed liberally in favor of employees. The court acknowledged that the burden of proof for overtime pay typically falls on the employee. However, the DTRs submitted by Cambila and Samad, although not signed by Seabren’s representatives, were certified by Ecoland’s manager, Adtoon. Considering that Ecoland was Seabren’s client and the location where the guards were assigned, the Court found that Adtoon was logically in the best position to monitor and authenticate the guards’ working hours. This perspective contrasts with the Court of Appeals’s (CA) earlier decision that the DTRs lacked probative value due to the absence of the security agency’s signature.

The Supreme Court then referred to the concept of prima facie evidence. The entries in the DTRs constituted such evidence, which, if not rebutted, are sufficient to establish the claim of overtime work. Respondents did not present evidence to contradict the DTRs or the Duty Detail Order (DDO) signed by Seabren’s Operations Manager, Magsayo, and Dureza herself. The DDO indicated shifts of ‘7am-7pm’ or ‘7pm-7am’ for the security guards. Even Seabren admitted that the security guards did not leave the premises during their supposed four-hour break. This admission is critical because it directly impacts whether the ‘broken period’ can be considered a legitimate break from work.

The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code clarify that if an interruption is too brief to be used effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest, it should be considered working time. In this context, the Court found that it was impractical for the minimum wage-earning security guards to leave Ecoland’s premises and return within the same day for a four-hour break. This led to the conclusion that Seabren’s broken period scheme was designed to circumvent labor laws and avoid paying overtime.

The Supreme Court cited Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, reiterating that an employer’s formal admission that employees worked beyond eight hours should entitle them to overtime compensation without further proof. Seabren’s admission that the guards remained on the premises during the supposed break bolstered the claim for overtime pay. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that any doubt in the evaluation of evidence between the employer and employee must be resolved in favor of the employee.

In summary, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA’s decision and reinstating the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision. The case was referred back to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the monetary award, which will also include legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment. By giving weight to the DTRs certified by the client’s manager, the Court underscored that substance prevails over form in labor disputes. This decision prevents employers from exploiting technicalities to deny employees their rightful compensation. Security agencies are now on notice that they cannot rely on ‘broken period’ arrangements or the absence of their own signature on DTRs to avoid paying overtime, especially when the client verifies the extended working hours.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of accurate record-keeping. The DTRs, when supported by the testimony of the client’s manager, served as crucial evidence that ultimately secured the security guards’ overtime pay. For employees in similar situations, this case serves as a precedent for seeking fair compensation based on verifiable records of actual hours worked. Employers, on the other hand, must ensure that their timekeeping practices are transparent and accurate, reflecting the true hours worked by their employees. Legal frameworks protect workers, but these protections are only effective when employees have a way to document their labor.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Daily Time Records (DTRs) signed by the client’s manager, rather than the security agency, could serve as valid proof of overtime work for security guards.
Why did the Court of Appeals initially deny the overtime pay?	The Court of Appeals considered the DTRs as self-serving because they were not signed by the security agency’s representatives, but by the client’s manager.
What was Seabren Security Agency’s main argument against paying overtime?	Seabren argued that the security guards worked on a ‘broken period’ arrangement, with a four-hour break, thus not entitling them to overtime pay.
How did the Supreme Court view the ‘broken period’ arrangement?	The Supreme Court considered the ‘broken period’ arrangement as a scheme to circumvent labor laws and avoid paying overtime, especially since the guards remained on the premises during the break.
Who has the burden of proof in overtime pay claims?	Typically, the employee has the burden of proving they rendered overtime work. However, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in this case to support the guards’ claims.
What is ‘prima facie’ evidence, and how did it apply in this case?	‘Prima facie’ evidence is evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless rebutted. The DTRs served as prima facie evidence of overtime work, which Seabren failed to effectively rebut.
What did the Supreme Court cite in relation to the formal admission from the employer?	The Supreme Court cited Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, stating that an employer’s admission that employees worked beyond eight hours should entitle them to overtime pay without further proof.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the NLRC decision and ordering the Labor Arbiter to compute the monetary award, including legal interest, for the security guards.

This decision provides important clarity on the evidence needed to support overtime claims for security guards. It emphasizes that the actual work performed, as verified by reliable sources such as the client’s management, should take precedence over technicalities. It ensures that security agencies cannot exploit loopholes to deny rightful compensation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad vs. Seabren Security Agency and Elizabeth S. Dureza, G.R. No. 261716, October 21, 2024