Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

6 Wiliam Lines Inc v Lopez 2.

Partially Yes
GR L-33013 March 28, 1980 - Section 7-A of the Eight Hour Labor Law states that enforcement of an action
By: JT shall forever be barred if not done within 3 years after the cause of action
Topic: Overtime Instruction; not required accrues.
Petitioners: William Lines Inc. - Since Lopez filed the case on March 17, 1964 he can only collect the overtime
Respondents: Eugenio Lopez pay from March 17, 1961 up to October 13, 1962
Ponente: Barredo, J.
NOTES:
FACTS:
Material Dates
● William Lines Inc employed Eugenio Lopez as storekeeper of M/V Luzon on May 5,
- May 5, 1947: Date of employment
1947.
- October 13, 1962: Lopez contract of employment was terminated
● Subsequently, he was transferred to M/V Edward , M.V Victorian and M/V Davao,
- March 17, 1964: Lopez filed a case
respectively.
● On October 13, 1962, M/V Davao was dry-docked in Cebu and Eugenio received his
severance pay .
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
● However on March 17, 1964 or after 1 year, 5 months and 4 days he filed a petition
before the Court of Industrial Relations claiming salary differentials, premium pay
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is
and overtime compensation.
affirmed with the modifications above indicated, namely: petitioners are directed to pay to
● William Lines filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that CIR had no jurisdiction
claimant-respondent overtime compensation at the rate of 2 hours a day, based on the last
over the case and that the petition has no cause of action.
monthly salary rate, from March 17, 1961 to October 13, 1962, excluding Sundays and legal
● In addition, William Lines contended:
holidays, without right to reinstatement.
○ That the dismissal was lawful as Lopez received a severance pay;
○ Lopez cannot be entitled to premium pay because William Lines is a public
Let the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) be furnished with a copy of this decision.
utility corporation;
SO ORDERED.
○ The claims had already prescribed;
○ Lopez did not render overtime work because the nature of his work as a
seaman has no fixed time and did not require him to work form more than
8 hours a day
● CIR: Ruled in favor of Eugenio Lopez ordering William Lines to pay Lopez the overtime
compensation at the rate of 2 hours per day for the duration of his employment.
● William Lines filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 43

ISSUE:
1. WON CIR’s finding of fact as to the number of working hours during his employment is
binding to the parties and court
2. WON the claim for overtime compensation, has already prescribed

RULING:

1. Yes, there is evidence that Lopez worked more than 8 hours


- Although there was no exact number of hours, the testimony of Lopez showed
that 2 hours, more or less were spent in cleaning the storeroom in the morning
and in the afternoon. In addition, he also served food three times a day at
4:30am, 10:00am. and 3pm.
- Clearly, he averaged 10 hours a day.