B-155290, SEPT. 3, 1965
Highlights
THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF MAY 20. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 28. THE ONLY NEW MATTER OF SUBSTANCE PRESENTED IS YOUR CONTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FAILURE TO ALLOW OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIODS IN QUESTION CONTRAVENES THE PHILIPPINE EIGHT-HOUR LABOR LAW. FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT SUCH LAW IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION. THERE STILL IS NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. UNDERGO INSPECTION) AND THE TIME HE BEGAN DUTY AT HIS ACTUAL POST OF DUTY WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PART OF THE "WORKING DAY" UNDER LOCAL CUSTOM AND USAGE. WE HAVE NOT FOUND. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER BUT WE MUST REAFFIRM OUR PRIOR ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM.
B-155290, SEPT. 3, 1965
TO MR. FIDEL O. RODRIGUEZ:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 24, 1965, CONCERNING THE CLAIM OF MR. BENJAMIN S. GARCIA FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ALLEGEDLY HAVING BEEN REQUIRED TO REPORT 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START OF HIS TOUR OF DUTY AS AN EMPLOYEE (SECURITY GUARD) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, CAMP CAVITE, PHILIPPINES, FROM DECEMBER 5, 1947, TO FEBRUARY 23, 1954. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF MAY 20, 1958, AND, UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 28, 1964, TO MR. GARCIA, AND BY OUR DECISION OF MAY 19, 1965, TO YOUR MR. JOVITO O. VITANZO.
THE ONLY NEW MATTER OF SUBSTANCE PRESENTED IS YOUR CONTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FAILURE TO ALLOW OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIODS IN QUESTION CONTRAVENES THE PHILIPPINE EIGHT-HOUR LABOR LAW, CA 444, TITLE 42, SECTION 87 AND FOLLOWING SECTIONS, PHILIPPINE ANNOTATED LAWS, EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 1939, WHICH IN SECTION 87 (SECTION 1 OF CA 444), PROVIDES THAT "THE LEGAL WORKING DAY" SHALL BE OF NOT MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS DAILY. ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT SUCH LAW IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION, THERE STILL IS NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. THE EMPLOYING AGENCY (DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE) HAS DETERMINED IN EFFECT THAT THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED TO A CENTRAL LOCATION (TO CHECK IN, RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS, AND UNDERGO INSPECTION) AND THE TIME HE BEGAN DUTY AT HIS ACTUAL POST OF DUTY WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PART OF THE "WORKING DAY" UNDER LOCAL CUSTOM AND USAGE, AS EXPLAINED IN OUR PRIOR DECISIONS IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE, THE EARLY REPORTING TIME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF CA 444 CONCERNING OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS A DAY. OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED TO, AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND, ANY DECISION BY APPROPRIATE PHILIPPINE AUTHORITY REQUIRING A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER BUT WE MUST REAFFIRM OUR PRIOR ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM.
WE NOTE THAT SECTION 1 OF RA 1993 ADDED 7-A TO CA 444, EFFECTIVE JUNE 22, 1957, TO IMPOSE A 3-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD FOR COMMENCING ACTION TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT, AND WE INVITE YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT CLAIM (LETTER DATED AUGUST 14, 1957) WAS NOT RECEIVED HERE UNTIL AUGUST 20, 1957, MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE LAST DATE, FEBRUARY 23, 1954, FOR WHICH CLAIM IS MADE, AND, ALSO, TO THE FACT THAT A REQUEST (LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1964) TO REVIEW OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 20, 1958, WAS NOT RECEIVED HERE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 1964, MORE THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE SETTLEMENT WAS ISSUED.