Azucena

Art. 82. Coverage

 The standards apply only if there exists employer-employee relationship between the parties.
 Excluded Employees:
1. Government Employees
2. Managerial Employees or Staff
 A Supervisor is manager for purposes of Book II, but he is not so for purposes of
Book V. Under Book V, supervisors, unlike managers, are allowed to form, join or
assist the labor union of fellow supervisors. But under Book III, supervisors, like
managers, are not entitled to the benefits under Article 83 through 96, such as
overtime pay or rest day or holiday pay. If a supervisor is given these benefits, it
is not because of law but the employer’s voluntary act or contractual obligation.
3. Outside or Field Sales Personnel
 The phrase “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty” in Art. 82 must be read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III
of the Implementing Rules which provides:
Section 1. Coverage --- This rule shall apply to all employees except:
xxx
(e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is
unsupervised by the employer who are engaged on task or contract basis,
purely commission basis, or those who are paid in a fixed amount for
performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance.
 If usage of work hours is supervised, the employee is not a field personnel.
4. Employer’s Family Members
 Workers who are family members of the employer, and dependent on him for
their support, are outside the coverage of this Title on working conditions and rest
periods.
5. Domestic Helper and Persons Rendering Personal Service
 Since the rules require that domestic servants must perform their services in the
employer’s home, a family cook who is later assigned to work as a watcher and
cleaner of the employer’s business establishment, becomes an industrial worker
entitled to receive the wages and benefits flowing from such status. (Villa v.
Zaragosa)
6. Workers Paid by Result

Art. 83. Normal Hours of Work

 Purpose of the Eight-Hour Labor Law: not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the laborer
or employee but in a way to minimize unemployment by forcing employers, in cases where more
than 8-hour operation is necessary, to utilize different shift or laborers. (Manila Terminal v. CIR)
 Part-time work is not prohibited; maximum is prescribed but not a minimum.
 Work hours of health personnel: Forty-hour workweek.
 Medical secretaries are also considered clinic personnel

Art. 84. Hours Worked

 Preliminary and postliminary activities are deemed performed during working hours, where such
activities are controlled or required by the employer and are pursued necessarily and primarily for
the employer’s benefit.
 Waiting Time: The controlling factor is whether waiting time spent in idleness is so spent
predominantly for the employer’s benefit or for the employee’s. Waiting time spent by an
employee shall be considered as working time if waiting is an integral part of his work or if the
employee is required or engaged by an employer to wait.
 Meal time is not compensable if he (employee) is completely freed from duties during his meal
period even though he remains in the workplace.
  A worker sleeping may be working. This will depend on the express or implied agreement of the
parties. The rule is that sleeping time may be considered working time if it is subject to serious
interruption or takes place under conditions substantially less desirable than would be likely
to exist at the employee’s home.
 An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer’s premises or so close thereto
that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while “on call”. An
employee who is not required to remain on the employer’s premises but is merely required to
leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while
on call.
 Travel Time
1. Travel from home to work – normal travel from home to work is not worktime; but when
an employee receives an emergency call outside of his regular working hours and is
required to travel to his regular place of business or some other site, all of the time spent
in such travel is working time.
2. Travel that is all in the day’s work
3. Travel away from home – Travel that keeps an employee away from home overnight is
travel away from home. Travel away from home is clearly worktime when it cuts across
the employee’s workday.
 Attendance at lectures, meetings, etc need not be counted as working time if the following three
criteria are met:
1. Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;
2. Attendance is in fact voluntary;
3. The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance
 Semestral Break
• The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his work beyond
his control shall be considered time either if the imminence of the resumption of work
required the employee’s presence at the place of work or if the interval is too brief to be
utilized effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest. (Sec. 4(d), Rule I, Book
III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
 Seamen. Overtime compensation is due only for the actual service in excess of 8 hours that he
could prove.
 Burden of proof. When an employer alleges that his employee works less than the normal hours
of employment as provided for in the law, he bears the burden of proving his allegation with clear
and satisfactory evidence.

Art. 85. Meal Periods

 Meal time is not compensable except in cases where the lunch period or meal time is
predominantly spent for the employer’s benefit or where it is less than 60 minutes.
 The implementing rules (Sec. 7, Rule I, Book III) allow the meal time to be less than 60 minutes,
under specified cases and in no case shorter than 20 minutes.
The situations where meal break may be shortened to less than 60 minutes, with
full pay, are the following:
a) Where the work is non-manual or does not involve serious physical
exertion;
b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a
day;
c) Where there is actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work
to be performed on machineries, equipment or installation to avoid
serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and
d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.
 To shorten meal time to less than 20 minutes is not allowed.

Art. 86. Night Shift Differential

  Additional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy, hence the same cannot
be waived.
 Burden of proof of payment of ot pay is on the employer unless the negative allegation is an
essential part of the employee’s cause of action.

Art. 87. Overtime Work

 Overtime compensation is additional pay for service or work rendered or performed in excess of
eight hours a day by employees or laborers in employment covered by the Eight-Hour Labor Law
and not exempt from its requirements.
 The receipt of overtime pay will not preclude the right to night differential pay.
 Regular basic pay necessarily excludes money received in different concepts such as Christmas
bonus and other fringe benefits.
 A work day is understood to be the twenty-four hour period which commences from the time the
employee regularly starts to work. Any work in excess of 8 hours within the 24 hours is
considered as overtime work regardless of whether the work covers two calendar days.
 The minimum normal working hours need not be continuous to constitute as the legal working
day of 8 hours as long as the 8 hours is within a work day.
 An express instruction from the employer is not required for the employee to be entitled to ot pay;
it is sufficient that the employee is permitted or suffered to work. However, a claim for ot pay is not
justified in the absence of a written authority to render ot after office hours during Sundays and
holidays. Neither is ot claim justified for days where no work was required and no work could be
done by employees on account of shutdown due to electrical power interruption, machine repair
and lack of raw materials.
 A claim for overtime pay will, however, not be granted for want of factual and legal basis.
 The right to overtime pay cannot be waived expressly or impliedly.
 When a waiver of overtime pay is in consideration of benefits and privileges which may be more
than what will accrue to them in overtime pay, the waiver may be permitted.
 An arrangement whereby the salary already includes overtime pay, to be valid, must be in a
clear written agreement and the agreed legal wage rate and the overtime pay, computed
separately, are equal to or higher than the separate amounts legally due.
 Compressed Work Week
• Although encouraged, adoption of the CWW scheme is valid only if the following conditions
are observed, otherwise overtime pay may still be claimed:
1. The scheme is expressly and voluntarily supported by majority of the employees
affected.
2. In firms using substances, or operating in conditions hat are hazardous to health, a
certification is needed from an accredited safety organization or the firm’s safety
committee that work beyond eight hours is within the limits or level s of exposure set
DOLE’s occupational safety and health standards.
3. The DOLE regional office is duly notified.
• Effects
1. Unless there is a more favorable practice existing in the firm, work beyond eight
hours will not be compensable by overtime premium provided the total number of
hours worked per day shall not exceed 12 hours. xxx
2. Employees under a CWW scheme are entitled to meal periods of not less than 60
minutes. xxx
3. Adoption of the CWW scheme shall in no case result in diminution of existing
benefits. Reversion to the normal eight-hour workday shall not constitute a diminution
of benefits. xxx (Reversion – management prerogative provided employees are given
prior notice)

Art. 88. Undertime Not Offset by Overtime

 Ratio: not being of equal value, offsetting is not justified.
  The offsetting of undertime work by overtime work, whether on the same or on another day, is
prohibited by jurisprudence and statute.

Art. 89. Emergency Overtime Work

 In addition to the enumeration, the implementing rules authorizes compulsory overtime work
when it is necessary to avail of favorable weather or environmental conditions where performance
or quality of work is dependent thereon.
 In cases not falling within any of the enumerated cases or instances, no employee may be made
to work beyond eight hours a day against his will.

Art. 90. Computation of Additional Compensation

 Regular wage does not include other benefits, for purposes of computing the overtime pay.

Manila Terminal Co., Inc. v. CIR (1952)

Paras, C.J.

Facts:
Manila Terminal hired some (30) watchmen on twelve-hour shifts (Increased rates: day shift- P4/day; night
shift- P6.25/day). Manila Terminal later instituted a system of strict eight-hour shifts (Revised rate:
P5.50/day for both day and night shifts). Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association (apparently
the union) filed a petition praying that its watchmen be paid overtime pay. Manila Terminal contends that
(1) CIR has no jurisdiction; (2) the agreement under which its watchmen were paid a certain rate for 12-
hour shifts included overtime compensation; (3) the association is barred from recovery by laches and
estoppel; (4) the nullity of the agreement precludes any recovery by the association; and (5) the statute
does not authorize recovery of back overtime pay.
Issue/s:
WON an agreement under which the worker is paid a certain rate for 12-hour shifts can be deemed to
include overtime compensation.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Where the contract of employment requires work for more than eight hours at specified wages per day,
without providing for a fixed hourly rate or that the daily wages include overtime pay, said wages cannot
be considered as including overtime compensation required under the Eight-Hour Labor Law. The right to
overtime compensation cannot be waived. The principle of estoppel and laches cannot be invoked
either because that would be contrary to the spirit of the Eight-Hour Labor Law and because the
employee or laborer who cannot renounce his right to extra compensation, may be compelled to
accomplish the same thing by mere silence or lapse of time. Neither can illegality of the contract bar
recovery because the Eight-Hour Labor Law is intended for the benefit of laborers and employees, and
because the law makes only the employer criminally liable for any violation. The employer cannot,
therefore, invoke any violation of the Act to exempt him from liability for extra compensation. Neither is
recovery for back overtime pay precluded. The Eight-Hour Labor Law was designed not only to
safeguard the health and welfare of the laborer or employee, but in a way to minimize
unemployment by forcing employers, in cases where more than 8-hour operation is necessary, to
utilize different shifts of laborers or employees working only for eight hours each. Manila Terminal
employees who are qualified, are therefore entitled to overtime pay.

Asia Pacific Chartering (Phils.), Inc. v. Farolan (2002)

Carpio-Morales, J.

Facts:
Asia Pacific offered Farolan the position of Sales Manager which the latter accepted. She was verbally
briefed of the nature of the position. As there was poor sales performance, a high ranking officer took over
Farolan's sales responsibilities. Afterwards, Farolan received two letters from the GM commending her
performance. A third letter sent on even date as the second one terminated Farolan's services. Farolan
sued Asia Pacific for illegal dismissal. Asia Pacific cites the principle that the right to dismiss a mangerial
employee is a measure of self-preservation.
Issue/s:
WON there was illegal dismissal.
Held: YES.
Ratio:
With respect to rank and file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal
requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroborated assertions
and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as regards a managerial employee, mere
existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice
for his dismissal. Before one may be properly considered a managerial employee, all the following
conditions must be met: (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment
in which they are employed or of a departmentor subdivision thereof; (2) They customarily and
regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein; (3) They have the authority to hire or
fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring
and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given
particular weight. (Section 2(b), Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code). In
this case, Court was in the dark as to whether Farolan was a managerial employee or not due to the
absence of a written agreement. Even assuming that Farolan was a managerial employee, the stated
ground for her dismissal, that is, loss of confidence, should have a basis and determination thereof cannot
be left entirely to the employer. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal must be
based on a willful breach and founded on clearly established facts. There is no showing that the decline in
sales was reflective of any willful breach of duties by Farolan. Neither was Asia Pacific's allegation of
incompetence deserving of credit since Farolan was approached and offered the position. In fine, Asia
Pacific did not comply with both requirements for a valid dismissal, to wit: (a) the employee must be
afforded due process - no notice was given Farolan; and (b)dismissal must be for a valid cause.

Peñaranda v. Baganga Plywood Corporation (2006)

Panganiban, C.J.

Facts:
Peñaranda was hired by Baganga Plywood to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam
plant boiler. He filed for an illegal dismissal with money claims against Baganga when his services were
terminated. It appears that such termination was on account of temporary closure of the company and
that Peñaranda had received separation benefits. The labor arbiter limited the award to overtime pay and
premium pay for working on rest days. The NLRC deleted the award on the ground the Peñaranda was a
managerial employee. Peñaranda denies that he was a managerial employee.
Issue/s:
WON Peñaranda was entitled to overtime pay and premium pay for working on rest days.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Art. 82 of the Labor Code exempts managerial employees from the coverage of labor standards. Labor
standards provide the working conditions of employees, including entitlement to overtime pay and
premium pay for working on rest days. Under this provision, managerial employees are those whose
primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a
department or subdivision. (See Asia Pacific for cited Implementing Rule on who are considered
managerial employees.) Peñaranda was not a managerial employee but was a member of the
managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards. The Implementing
Rules of the Labor Code define members of a managerial staff as those with the following duties and
responsibilities: (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management
policies of the employer; (2) Customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment;
(3)(i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of
the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute
under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience,
or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks; and (4) who do
not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly
and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.
(Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(c))

As shift engineer, Peñaranda's duties and responsibilities were: (1) To supply the required and continuous
steam to all consuming units at minimum cost; (2) To supervise, check and monitor manpower
workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories; (3) To evaluate performance of machinery
and manpower; (4) To follow-up supply of waste and other materials for fuel; (5) To train new employees
for effective and safety while working; (6) Recommend parts and supplies purchases; (7) To recommend
personnel action such as: promotion, or disciplinary action; (8) To check water from the boiler, feedwater
and softener, regenerate softener if beyond hardness limit; (9) Implement Chemical Dosing; and (10)
Perform other task as required by superior from time to time. The foregoing enumeration, particularly
items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 illustrates that petitioner was a member of the managerial staff under the
Implementing Rules. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of
workers. This necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment. In his position paper,
he stated that he was the foreman responsible for the operation of the boiler. The term foreman implies
that he was the representative of management over the workers and the operation of the department. His
classification as supervisor is further evident from the manner his salary was paid. He belonged to the
10% of respondent's 354 employees who were paid on a monthly basis; the others were paid only on a
daily basis. Since Peñaranda is considered a member of managerial staff, he is not entitled to overtime
pay and premium pay for working on rest days.

Mercidar Fishing Corporation v. NLRC (1998)

Mendoza, J.

Facts:
Private respondent Agao was employed as a bodegero or ship’s quartermaster. He had been sick and
was allowed to go on leave without pay but was refused to be admitted back to work. Agao filed an action
against Mercidar for illegal dismissal, violation of PD No. 851, and non-payment of five days service
incentive leave. Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement with backwages, payment of 13th month pay and
incentive leave pay for 1990. Mercidar argues that since the work of Agao is performed away from its
principal place of business, it has no way of verifying his actual hours of work on the vessel. It contends
that Agao and other fishermen in its employ should be classified as field personnel who have no statutory
right to service incentive leave pay.
Issue/s:
WON Agao is a field personnel and therefore not entitled to service incentive leave pay.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Art. 82 of the Labor Code excludes field personnel from application of the Labor Standards. It defines
“field personnel” as non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The requirement that “actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty” must be read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III of
the Implementing Rules which provides: Section 1. This rule shall apply to all employees except: xxx (e)
Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer
xxx. The clause “whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer” did not amplify but
merely interpreted and expounded the clause “whose actual hour of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty”. The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Art. 82
which defines field personnel. In the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage,
fishermen employed by Mercidar have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform
non-agricultural work away from petitioner’s business offices, the fact remains that throughout the
duration of their work they are under the effective control and supervision of Mercidar through the
vessel’s patron or master as the NLRC correctly held.
Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista (2005)
Chico-Nazario, J.

Facts:
Private respondent Bautista was employed by Auto Bus Transport as driver-conductor and paid on
commission basis. After figuring in an accident, management sent him a letter of termination. Bautista
then instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims. Auto Bus maintained that the dismissal
was based on valid cause and that due process was observed. The labor arbiter dismissed the case for
illegal dismissal but ordered the payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC
deleted the award of 13th month pay but maintained the award of service incentive leave pay. Auto Bus
contends that Bautista is not entitled to the grant of service incentive leave because he was paid on
purely commission basis.
Issue/s:
WON Bautista, who is paid on purely commission basis, is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave
pay.
Held: YES.
Ratio:
Employees engaged on task or contract basis or purely commission basis are not automatically
exempted from the grant of service incentive leave, unless, they fall under the classification of
field personnel. The phrase “those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis”
should be related with “field personnel” applying the rule on ejusdem generis. As a general rule, field
personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by the employer or his
representative, the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of work
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they are paid specific amount for rendering
specific service or performing specific work. If required to be at specific places at specific times,
employees including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are
performing work away from the principal office of the employee. The definition of a “field
personnel” is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his
duties but also with the fact that the employee’s performance is unsupervised by the employer – in
order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual
hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. An inquiry must
be made as to whether or not the employee’s time and performance are constantly supervised by
the employer. It is of judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by these bus companies, there are
its inspectors assigned at strategic places xxx. There is also the mandatory once-a-week car barn or shop
day, where the bus is regularly checked, xxx. The drivers too, must be at specific places at specific times,
as they generally observe prompt departure and arrival from their point of origin to their point of
destination. In each and every depot, there is always the dispatcher, whose function is precisely to see to
it that the bus and its crew leave the premises at specific times and arrive at the estimated proper time.
These are present in the case at bar. Bautista, therefore, is not a field personnel. Accordingly, he is
entitled to the grant of service incentive leave.

Labor Congress of the Philippines v. NLRC (1998)

Davide, Jr., J.

Facts:
Petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, union busting, violation of MOA, underpayment of
wages, and actual, moral and exemplary damages against Empire Food Products. The labor arbiter
absolved the employer but ordered reinstatement. The NLRC, upon appeal, remanded the case to the
labor arbiter for further proceedings (complainants’ testimonial evidence was overlooked). This time
around, the labor arbiter found that the complainants were guilty of abandonment and that there was no
basis for its claim for underpayment of wages since the complainants were piece workers or paid on a
pakiao basis (repacking of cheese curls). (Harsh words from the labor arbiter: Certainly, a lazy worker
earns less than the minimum wage but the same cannot be attributable to the employer but to the lazy
workers.) The NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter.
Issue/s:
WON herein piece workers are exempted from the application of the provision of the Code on Labor
Standards.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Unrelated issue on abandonment: Failure to work for one day, which resulted in the spoilage of cheese
curls does not amount to abandonment of work. It is the clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume
employment and not mere absence that constitutes abandonment.

Petitioners, although piece-rate worker, were regular employees of private respondents (job was
necessary or desirable in the usual business; worked throughout the year, not dependent of a specific
project or season; length of time worked).

The Rules Implementing the Labor Code exclude certain employees from receiving benefits. However,
Section 8(b), Rule IV, Book III specifically mention piece worker as being entitled to holiday pay.

Sec. 8 Holiday pay of certain employees. –

(b) Where a covered employee is paid by results or output, such as payment of piece
work, his holiday pay shall not be less than his average daily earnings for the last seven
(7) actual working days preceding the regular holiday: Provided, however, that in no case
shall the holiday pay be less than the applicable statutory minimum wage rate.

Petitioners are likewise entitled to 13th month pay. The Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the
13th Month Pay Law clearly exclude the employer of piece rate workers from those exempted from paying
the 13th month pay. It likewise identifies those workers who fall under the piece-rate category are those
who are paid a standard amount for every piece or unit of work produced that is more or less regularly
replicated, without regard to the time spent in producing the same.

According to Sec. 2(e), Rule I, Book III of the Implementing Rules, workers who are paid by results
including those who are paid on piece-work, takay, pakiao, or task basis, if their output rates are
in accordance with the standards prescribed under Sec. 8, Rule VIII, Book III, of these regulations,
or where such rates have been fixed by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the aforesaid
section, are not entitled to overtime pay. Here, private respondents did not allege adherence to the
standards set forth in Sec. 8 nor with the rates prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. As such, petitioners
are beyond the ambit of exempted persons and are therefore entitled to overtime pay.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC (1999)

Puno, J.

Facts:
Respondent Dr. Fabros was employed as flight surgeon at PAL and was assigned at the PAL Medical
Clinic from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On Feb. 17, 1994, Dr. Fabros left the clinic at around 7:00 pm to
have his dinner at his home, which was a few minutes away from the clinic. While he was away, an
emergency call came through. The nurse called him at his home and informed him of the emergency. The
patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 and was brought by the nurse to the hospital (he died the day after). Dr.
Fabros arrived at the clinic at around 7:51. PAL suspended Dr. Fabros for abandonment of post while on
duty (went through due process). Dr. Fabros: he was entitled to a 30-minute meal break; he immediately
went back to the clinic upon learning of the emergency. PAL: Dr. Fabros, being a full-time employee is
obliged to stay in the company premises for not less than 8 hours; he cannot leave the company
premises, even to take his meals.
Issue/s:
WON Dr. Fabres abandoned his post while on duty by leaving for his home to take his dinner.
Held: NO.
Ratio:
Art. 83. Normal Hours of work.—The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed
eight hours a day.
 Health personnel in cities and municipalities xxx shall hold regular office hours for eight hours a
day, for five days a week, exclusive of time for meals, xxx.

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 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 hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of
not less than twenty minutes may be given by the employer provided that such shorter meal period
is credited as compensable hours worked of the employee: xxx

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. Dr. Fabros' act of going home
to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment. (PAL ordered to pay the benefits Dr. Fabros should
have received during his period of suspension; award of moral damages was deleted for lack of basis.)