[ G.R. No. 230041.
December 05, 2022 ]
BONPACK CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA
BONPACK-SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND
REFORMS (NMB-SUPER), REPRESENTED BY ITS UNION PRESIDENT, ZOSIMA** BUCIO,
RESPONDENT.
The one-hour meal break,
which is divided into 3 parts, is
compensable
Lastly, petitioner denies ordering their employees to have their meal break for one hour instead
of 30 minutes. Petitioner asserts that it just so happened that they have employees taking the
compensable 30-minute meal break and those still having their routinary one-hour continuous
breaktime. According to petitioner, those who took the one-hour rest period were no longer entitled
to be compensated following the no work, no pay policy.75
The Court is not persuaded.
Sec. 83, in relation to Sec. 85 of the Labor Code, states that the compensable eight hours of
work in a day does not include the 60 minutes time-off for the regular meals of an employee, ergo,
this statutory one-hour meal break, not being part of the normal working hours of an employee, is
non-compensable. In short, the normal eight-hour work period does not include the statutory and
non-compensable one-hour meal break.76
Nevertheless, the hours of work of the employees may be modified or regulated in a duly signed
CBA between the employer and its employees. It is rudimentary that: "[a] collective bargaining
agreement or CBA refers to the negotiated contract between a legitimate labor organization and the
employer concerning wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient provided these are not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy. Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it
becomes the law between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy
of the law."77
Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule VII of the CBA regarding meal times are unambiguous, to wit:
Section 1. Hours of Work. – The working hours in the COMP ANY shall be Eight (8) hours
a day including meal break of thirty (30) minutes and two (2) fifteen (15) minutes coffee
break. The regular working day shall be Six (6) days a week, from Monday to Saturday. Sunday is
considered the general rest day of all employees in the COMPANY. All employees shall be found
stationed at their designated place of work at the start of their time of work.
a) Grace Period – Employees who come to work late shall be entitled to grace period of an
aggregate of One Hundred Twenty (120) Minutes consumable in a month. Provided that
corresponding disciplinary actions found in the employees handbook shall be imposed on the
employee who incurred more than three (3) of fifteen to thirty (15-30) minutes late in a month; in
excess of thirty (30) minutes will be subject for approval of department head.
Section 2. Overtime Pay – Any employee who works in excess of Eight (8) hours in any regular
working day shall be entitled to an additional Twenty Five percent (25%) of the daily hour basic rate
as overtime premium. The overtime work of employees shall not be used to offset absences incurred
by them on regular working hours.78 (Emphasis supplied)
The short rest periods of meal time, or those periods shorter than one-hour, have been
purposely integrated by the parties in the normal eight-hour workday. The intent of the parties is
1a⍵⍴h!1
readily ascertainable. The CBA divided the meal time of the employees into three parts, i.e., the 30-
minute lunch break and two 15-minute coffee breaks. Evidently, the meal time was divided into
shorter rest periods so that these periods can be considered as compensable.
Petitioner, however, essentially admitted that it wittingly allowed the employees to consume one
whole hour of continuous meal break instead of strictly implementing the CBA mandated 30-minute
meal break and two 15-minute rest periods. In defining the commission of the offense of "over break"
in the revised CRR, petitioner even classified those consuming the one-hour meal break as "straight
time" employees and those consuming the 30-minute meal break as "non-straight time" employees.
Evidently, petitioner had established two policies on hours of work and meal period. As the Court
sees it, petitioner cunningly permitted the "straight time" employees to lump the short meal breaks
into one-hour, which is against the CBA.
Thus, through petitioner's scheming policy, it authorized a one-hour meal break that is not
compensable, contrary to the 30-minute meal break and two 15-minute coffee breaks under the
CBA. The obvious intent of petitioner in this policy of allowing the one-hour meal break is to lessen
the compensable work hours of its employees; instead of allowing the compensable meal break of
30-minutes and two 15-minute coffee breaks in the CBA. This is clearly a circumvention of the
unequivocal provisions of the CBA providing for compensable meal and rest periods.
In effect, those employees rendering 12 hours of work in an eight-hour work day, were only
compensated with three hours of overtime pay,79 instead of four hours. Clearly, the policy
implemented by petitioner thwarted the provision of the CBA regarding the meal time of its
employees.
In sum, the CA correctly ruled that petitioner's employees who worked for 12 hours in an eight-
hour workday, and took the 30-minute and two 15-minute rest breaks as their meal time in
accordance with the CBA, must be compensated for four hours of overtime pay.80
