MEAL PERIODS -------- BREAKTIME

Article 85: Meal periods. Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty if
every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals. (Labor Code)

Section 7. Meal and Rest Periods. Every employer shall give his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1)
hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20)
minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours
worked of the employee:

(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion;
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen (16) hours a day;
(c) In case of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries,
equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.

Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as
compensable working time. (Implementing Rules)

The employer may give their employees rest periods or coffee breaks during working hours in order to
beef them up or to make them more productive. Unlike meal periods, rest periods running from 5 to 20
minutes is compensable as hours worked. Rest period running for more that 20 minutes may or may not
be compensable depending on the situation.

The giving of rest period, however, is not required under the Labor Code, and is largely a management
prerogative. (Source: http://www.laborlaw.usc-law.org/2009/09/05/determining-compensable-hours-
worked/)

COMMENTS AND CASES

1. MEAL TIME

Article 85 requires the employer to give employees 60 minutes time-off for their regular meals. Meal
time is not compensable except in cases where the lunch period or meal time is predominantly spent for
the employers benefit or where it is less than 60 minutes.

Lunch periods have been uniformly held not to constitute working time within the contemplation of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts, at least insofar as the employees are not required to
stay on the premises during the lunch period, or they are free to do what they will during such period,
although they may occasionally perform some emergency service. However, where the lunch period is
spent predominantly for the employers benefit, and cannot be utilized in the employees own interest,
such time constitutes work time.

1.1 When Meal Time is Time Worked: Continuous Shif

Where work is continuous for several shifts, the meal time breaks should be counted as working time for
purposes of overtime compensation.

National Development Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations and National Textile Workers Union,
GR no. L-15422, November 20, 1962

Facts: At the petitioner company, there were four work shifts of eight hours each with one-hour meal time
per shift. Petitioner credited the workers with eight hours of work per shift and paid them for that number
of hours. But since 1953, whenever workers In one shift were required to continue working until the next
shift, petitioner, instead of crediting them with 8 hours of overtime work, has been paying them for only
six hours. The employer claimed that the two hours corresponding to the meal time periods should not be
included in computing compensation. The employees maintained the opposite view.

Ruling: The idle time that an employee may spend for resting during which he may leave the spot or place
of work (though not the premises of his employer), is not counted as working time only where the work is
broken or not continuous.

In this case, evidence showed that the work in the petitioner company is continuous, to wit, time
cards showed work was interrupted, employees cannot freely leave their working places nor rest
completely; and during the period covered by the computation, the work was on a 24-hour basis divided
into shifts.

The work being continuous, the meal time breaks should be counted as working time for
purposes of overtime compensation. Petitioner should therefore credit employees sixteen (16) hours
when they work In two shifts and not fourteen.

Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. vs. NLRC et. Al, GR No. 119205, April 15, 1998

Facts: Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc., petitioner, is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tires, tubes and
other rubber products. Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association (ALU-TUCP), private respondent, is an
association of monthly salaried employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory. Prior to the present
controversy, all company factory workers in Marikina including members of private respondent
union worked from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30-minute paid on call lunch break.

Petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory-based employees advising all its monthly salaried
employees in its Marikina Tire Plant, except those in the Warehouse and Quality Assurance Department
working on shifts, a change in work schedule effective 14 September 1992 thus

TO: ALL FACTORY-BASED EMPLOYEES

RE: NEW WORK SCHEDULE
Effective Monday, September 14, 1992, the new work schedule of the factory office will be as follows:
7:45 A.M. 4:45 P.M. (Monday to Friday)
7:45 A.M. 11:45 A.M. (Saturday).
Coffee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between:
9:30 A.M. 10:30 A.M. and
2:30 P.M. 3:30 P.M.
Lunch break will be between:
12:00 NN 1:00 P.M. (Monday to Friday).

Since private respondent felt affected adversely by the change in the work schedule
and discontinuance of the 30-minute paid on call lunch break, it filed on behalf of its members
a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice, discrimination and evasion of liability
pursuant to the resolution of this Court in Sime Darby International Tire Co., Inc. v. NLRC. However,
the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the
elimination of the 30-minute paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise of
management prerogative and that the new work schedule, break time and one-hour lunch break did not
have the effect of diminishing the benefits granted to factory workers as the working time did not exceed
eight (8) hours.

Private respondent appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
sustained the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal. However, upon motion for reconsideration by
private respondent, the NLRC, this time with two (2) new commissioners replacing those who earlier
retired, reversed its earlier decision as well as the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC considered the
decision of this Court in the Sime Darby case of 1990 as the law of the case wherein petitioner was
ordered to pay the money value of these covered employees deprived of lunch and/or working time
breaks. The public respondent declared that the new work schedule deprived the employees of the
benefits of a time-honored company practice of providing its employees a 30-minute paid lunch break
resulting in an unjust diminution of company privileges prohibited by Art. 100 of the Labor Code, as
amended.

Hence, this petition alleging that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed in a lieu of comment a manifestation and motion
recommending that the petitioner be granted, alleging that the memorandum which contained the
new work schedule was not discriminatory of the union members nor did it constitute unfair labor
practice on the part of petitioner.

Ruling: The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. In the
instant case petitioner, as the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct of its
business operations and its improved production. It rationalizes that while the old work schedule
included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that
period as they were on call. Even if denominated as lunch break, this period could very well be
considered as working time because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and
were paid accordingly for working. Since the employees are no longer required to work during this one-
hour lunch break, there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period. We agree with the
Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours
without violating the Labor Code.

It was grave abuse of discretion for public respondent to equate the earlier Sime Darby case with
the facts obtaining in this case. That ruling in the former case is not applicable here. The issue in that case
involved the matter of granting lunch breaks to certain employees while depriving the other employees
of such breaks. This Court affirmed in that case the NLRCs finding that such act of management was
discriminatory and constituted unfair labor practice.

Further, management retains the prerogative, whenever exigencies of the service so require, to
change the working hours of its employees. So long as such prerogative is exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold such
exercise.

Philippine Airlines vs NLRC et. Al, GR No. 132805, February 2, 1999

Facts: Private respondent Dr. Fabros was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company. He was
assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon until 12:00 midnight.

On Feb.17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, Dr. Fabros left the clinic to have his dinner at his
residence, which was about 5-minute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an emergency
call from the PAL Cargo Services. One of its employees had suffered a heart attack. The nurse on duty, Mr.
Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of the emergency. The patient arrived at the
clinic at 7:50 in the evening and Mr. Eusebio immediately rushed him to the hospital. When Dr. Fabros
reached the clinic at around 7:51 in the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient to the
hospital. The patient died the following day.
 Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to
conduct an investigation. In his explanation, Dr. Fabros asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute
meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by Mr. Eusebio about the
emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio panicked and brought the
patient to the hospital without waiting for him.
Finding private respondents explanation unacceptable, the management charged private
respondent with abandonment of post while on duty. He denied that he abandoned his post on February
17, 1994. He said that he only left the clinic to have his dinner at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic at
7:51 in the evening upon being informed of the emergency..

After evaluating the charge as well as the answer of private respondent, he was given a
suspension for three months effective December 16, 1994.

Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension against petitioner.

On July 16, 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the suspension of private
respondent illegal. It also ordered petitioner to pay private respondent the amount equivalent to all the
benefits he should have received during his period of suspension plus P500,000.00 moral damages.

Petitioner appealed to the NLRC.

The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal after finding that the decision of the Labor Arbiter is
supported by the facts on record and the law on the matter. The NLRC likewise denied petitioners motion
for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

Ruling: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of the assailed decision awarding moral damages
to private respondent is DELETED. All other aspects of the decision are AFFIRMED

The legality of private respondents suspension: Dr. Fabros left the clinic that night only to have
his dinner at his house, which was only a few minutes drive away from the clinic. His whereabouts were
known to the nurse on duty so that he could be easily reached in case of emergency. Upon being informed
of Mr. Acostas condition, private respondent immediately left his home and returned to the clinic. These
facts belie petitioners claim of abandonment. Petitioner argues that being a full-time employee, private
respondent is obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than eight (8) hours. Hence, he may not
leave the company premises during such time, even to take his meals. We are not impressed. Art. 83 and
85 of the Labor Code read: Art. 83. Normal hours of work. The normal hours of work of any employee
shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day. Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at
least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100)
shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, 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 which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent
(30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, health personnel shall
include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic
personnel. (emphasis supplied) Art. 85. Meal periods. Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of
Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60)
minutes time-off for their regular meals. Sec. 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code further states: Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods. Every employer shall give his employees,
regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases
when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer provided that
such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee; (a) Where the
work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical exertion; (b) Where the
establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day; (c) In cases of actual or impending
emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to
avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and (d) Where the work is necessary to
prevent serious loss of perishable goods. Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty
(20) minutes shall be considered as compensable working time. 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
meals within the company premises. Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as
long as they return to their posts on time. Private respondents act, therefore, of going home to take his
dinner does not constitute abandonment.