Phil Airlines v. NLRC

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. his meals. This is not true.
According to Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER Code:
ROMULUS PROTACIO and DR. HERMINIO A. FABROS, respondents.
Art. 83. Normal hours of work. The normal hours of work of any employee
February 2, 1999 | Puno shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.
exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service
require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in
FACTS:
which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least
Dr. Herminio Fabros was employed as flight surgeon at Philippine Airlines. thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For
He was assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic and was on duty from 4PM purposes of this Article, health personnel shall include: resident
12MN. physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers,
On Feb 17, 1994, 7PM, the doctor left the clinic to have his dinner at his laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives,
residence, which was about five-minute drive away. A few minutes later, attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel.
the clinic received an emergency call that one of its employees, Mr.
Art. 85. Meal periods. Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor
Manuel Acosta, had suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty called
may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees
Fabros at home to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at the not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals.
clinic at 7:50PM and the nurse immediately rushed him to the hospital.
When Fabros reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the evening, the nurse Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
had already left with the patient. Mr. Acosta died the following day. Code further states:
Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director Dr. Godofredo B.
Banzon ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. In Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods. Every employer shall give his employees,
his explanation, Fabros asserted that he was entitled to a 30-min meal regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals,
break; that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by the except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty
nurse about the emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal
that the nurse panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee;
waiting for him.
(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve
The management charged private respondent with abandonment of post strenuous physical exertion;
while on duty. He was given 10 days to submit a written answer to the (b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours
administrative charge. In his answer, Fabros reiterated the assertions in a day;
his previous explanation. The company then decided to suspend him for 3 (c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to
months. Fabros filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner. be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious
LA: suspension was illegal; PAL to pay the amount equivalent to all the loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and
benefits during his period of suspension + P500,000.00 moral damages (d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable
goods.
NLRC: affirmed LA decision, MR denied
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes
ISSUE: WON Dr. Fabros was guilty of abandonment of post shall be considered as compensable working time.
RULING: NO. Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break.
Nowhere in the law may it be inferred that employees must take their
Fabros left the clinic that night only to have his dinner at his house, which meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from
was only a few minutes away from the clinic. His whereabouts were known going out of the premises as long as they return to their posts on time.
to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in case he Private respondents act, therefore, of going home to take his dinner does
immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These facts belie not constitute abandonment.
petitioners claim of abandonment.
Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private respondent is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of the assailed decision awarding
obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than 8 hours. Hence, moral damages to private respondent is DELETED. All other aspects of
he may not leave the company premises during such time, even to take the decision are AFFIRMED.

Phil Airlines v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil Airlines v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phil Airlines v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. his meals. This is not true.

According to Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.