after his services were terminated, Eugenio,, who was refused readmission to work by petitioners, filed a petition with the CIR, claiming salary differentials in the amount of P2,816.00, premium pay for services rendered on Sundays and holidays, as well as daily overtime compensation, with a request for reinstatement. Petitioners maintained in their answer that the dismissal of claimant respondent was lawful because he had been paid his separation pay; that he was not entitled to premium pay because petitioner was a public utility corporation; that the various claims had already prescribed; and that claimant- respondent never rendered overtime service because the
nature of his work was without fixed time and did not require him to work for more than eight (8) hours a day. ISSUE: Can he still collect overtime compensation? RULING: Since Sec. 7-A of the Eight-Hour Labor Law allows the enforcement of an action “within three years after the cause of action accrued, otherwise, such action shall be forever barred”, claimant-respondent can collect only the overtime compensation for the 2 hours in excess of the regular 8 hours a day which accrued within 3 years immediately before the filing of the petition on March 17, 1964. Similar claims which accrued prior to the 3-year period or before March 17, 1961 have already prescribed, and can no longer be enforced in this action. 262. NATIONAL SHIPYARD v. CIR FACTS: On April 15, 1957, Jose Abiday and 38 other persons, all employees of the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation, NASSCO for short filed with the said Court, a petition for additional compensation due to overtime services rendered. They alleged they had been required by the Corporation, to work, and worked, on Sundays and legal holidays, at nighttime, and more than eight hours a day, without receiving extra wages. Resisting the claim, the Corporation challenged the Court's jurisdiction. After trial, the Court on November 22, 1957, entered an order requiring additional compensation for such overtime work. It also directed the Examiner of the Court to compute from the books and records of the Corporation the amounts truly owing to each of the claimants. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Then on February 14, 1958, the Court Examiner rendered a partial report. Over the Corporation's opposition, the Court approved such report and accordingly directed execution of its order to pay. Whereupon, NASSCO announced its intention to appeal for review to this Supreme Court; and on April 2, 1958, it filed a petition. ISSUES: 1. Does the Court of industrial Relations have the jurisdiction after the passage and effectivity of the Industrial Peace Act (Republic Act No. 875) on June 17, 1953, over money claim for alleged unpaid overtime compensation? and
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 17 pages?