The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that security guards working under a broken period scheme are entitled to overtime pay if their break time is too short for personal use.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division ordered Seabren Security Agency (Seabren) to compensate security guards Lorenzo D. Cambila, Jr. and Albajar S. Samad for the four-hour breaks they were required to spend at work beyond their regular duty hours.

Seabren employed the security guards and assigned them to Ecoland 4000 Residences (Ecoland) in Davao City, where they worked 12-hour shifts with a four-hour break in between. Their schedule consisted of four hours of work, followed by a four-hour break, and another four-hour work period.

When the security guards requested a salary increase, Seabren ignored their appeal and reassigned them to a different post. Believing they were being forced to resign, they filed a labor complaint for constructive dismissal and unpaid overtime pay.

As evidence, the security guards presented their Daily Time Records (DTRs), signed by Ecoland’s manager, showing that they worked 12 continuous hours. Seabren countered that the guards were free to leave during breaks but admitted that, in practice, they remained on-site.

Both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled that while the security guards were not wrongfully dismissed, they were entitled to overtime pay as they effectively worked 12 straight hours. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, arguing that the DTRs were invalid since Seabren had not signed them.

The SC ultimately ruled in favor of the security guards, affirming that they had worked beyond eight hours and were therefore entitled to overtime pay under the Labor Code.

According to the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, break times count as work hours if they are too short for personal use. The SC found that the four-hour breaks in the security guards’ schedule qualified as work hours since it was impractical and costly for minimum wage earners to leave work, go home, and return within the same day.

The Court further ruled that Seabren’s broken period scheme was designed to circumvent labor laws and evade overtime pay. It also upheld the validity of the DTRs as proof of work hours, emphasizing that Ecoland’s manager—who signed them—was in the best position to verify the security guards’ attendance.