MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that security guards working under a broken period schedule must be compensated for overtime if their break is too short for personal use.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division directed Seabren Security Agency to pay overtime wages to security guards Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad. 

The ruling stemmed from the guards’ claim that their four-hour breaks, taken within their 12-hour shifts, were effectively part of their working hours.

The security guards were assigned to Ecoland 4000 Residences in Davao City, where they followed a schedule of four hours on duty, a four-hour break, and another four hours of work. 

When they sought a salary increase, Seabren ignored their request and reassigned them to a different post, prompting them to file a labor complaint for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime.

The guards presented Daily Time Records (DTRs) signed by Ecoland’s manager, showing they worked 12 straight hours. Seabren argued that the guards were free to leave during their breaks but admitted they remained on-site. 

The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sided with the guards, recognizing their entitlement to overtime pay. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision, citing the absence of Seabren’s signature on the DTRs.

The SC reinstated the earlier rulings in favor of the security guards, emphasizing that under the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code, breaks count as work hours if they are too short for personal use.

 The Court found that the four-hour breaks were impractical for minimum wage earners to leave, return home, and come back to work on the same day.

The SC also ruled that Seabren’s broken period scheme was a deliberate attempt to sidestep labor laws and evade paying overtime. 

It upheld the validity of the DTRs, affirming that Ecoland’s manager was in the best position to verify the guards’ work hours.