Who Is Covered by Hours-of-Work Rules? Article 82…

A delivery rider spends ten hours a day on the road and is told he is “field personnel” and therefore not owed overtime. A payroll clerk works a fixed 8-to-5 shift inside head office and is told she is “managerial staff” because her title says “Officer.” A live-in cook for the owner’s household is told the Labor Code’s hours-of-work rules simply do not apply to her at all. Two of these claims might be correct. All three deserve the same first question: does Article 82 of the Labor Code actually exclude this specific person, or is the employer just assuming it does?

Article 82 does not exempt “anyone the employer calls exempt.” It names a short, closed list of categories — and each category has its own legal test, its own implementing rule, and in most cases its own body of Supreme Court decisions drawing the line between who is covered and who is not. This guide walks through that list end to end: what Article 82 actually says, who falls into each excluded category, where the deeper guide for that category lives on LaborCode.ph, and what happens when an employer gets the classification wrong.

Direct Answer

Article 82 of the Labor Code covers every employee in every establishment, whether operating for profit or not, unless that employee falls into one of six specifically named excluded categories: government employees, managerial employees, officers or members of the managerial staff, field personnel, members of the employer’s family dependent on the employer for support, domestic workers and persons in the personal service of another, and workers paid by results under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.^[1] A job title, a pay structure, or the simple fact that someone works outside the office does not by itself create an exclusion — each category has a specific factual test, and the burden of proving the exclusion applies falls on the employer.^[2] Employees who fall outside all six categories remain entitled to overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and special days, holiday pay, night shift differential, and Service Incentive Leave under Title I, Book Three of the Labor Code.

Key Takeaways

Article 82 coverage is the default rule; exclusion is the exception, and the employer carries the burden of proving a specific employee genuinely falls within one of the six named categories.^[1]
The six excluded categories are: government employees, managerial employees, officers/members of the managerial staff, field personnel, family members dependent on the employer for support, domestic workers/persons in personal service of another, and workers paid by results.^[1]^[2]
“Managerial employee” and “managerial staff” each have their own three- or four-part factual test under the implementing rules — a title alone never settles the question.^[2]
“Field personnel” requires both regular work away from the office and hours that genuinely cannot be verified — GPS tracking, dispatch logs, or fixed routes generally defeat the exclusion.^[6]^[7]
Kasambahay (domestic workers) are not simply unprotected — they are covered by a separate, dedicated statute, the Batas Kasambahay, with its own hours-of-work and rest-period rules.^[4]
Being paid by piece rate, pakyaw, or commission does not automatically exclude a worker from Title I benefits; the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that workers paid by results who work under the employer’s control and supervision remain covered.^[8]
What Title I excludes is specific — overtime, premium pay, holiday pay, night differential, and Service Incentive Leave — and does not remove SSS/PhilHealth/Pag-IBIG coverage, security of tenure, or most other statutory benefits.
Misclassifying even one excluded category wrong can expose an employer to a multi-year money claim covering every employee treated the same way, subject to the three-year prescriptive period.

Legal Basis

Authority	Classification	Rule Supported	Effect
Labor Code, Article 82	Labor Code provision	States the general coverage rule for Title I, Book Three (hours of work) and names the six excluded categories	Binding law
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book III, Rule I, Sections 1–3	Implementing rule	Defines each excluded category, including the managerial-employee and managerial-staff tests	Binding administrative rule
DOLE-BWC/NWPC, Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, 2024 Edition	DOLE guidance	Restates the Article 82 coverage rule and each exclusion category in plain administrative guidance	Official administrative guidance
Republic Act No. 10361 (Batas Kasambahay)	Statute	Provides a separate, dedicated hours-of-work and rest-period framework for domestic workers instead of Title I coverage	Binding law, separate track
Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr., G.R. No. 79255, January 20, 1992	Supreme Court jurisprudence	Field personnel exclusion applies only where actual field hours genuinely cannot be verified	Controlling jurisprudence
Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005	Supreme Court jurisprudence	The field-personnel test turns on supervision, not location or pay structure	Controlling jurisprudence
National Sugar Refineries Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101761, March 24, 1993	Supreme Court jurisprudence	The managerial-staff exclusion under Article 82 is a separate test from the Article 219(m) union-eligibility definition	Controlling jurisprudence
Lambo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111042, October 26, 1999	Supreme Court jurisprudence	Piece-rate workers supervised and controlled by the employer inside company premises remain covered employees, not excluded workers paid by results	Controlling jurisprudence

The General Rule: Coverage Is the Default

Article 82 opens with a coverage rule, not an exclusion list: the provisions of Title I apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not.^[1] The excluded categories that follow are the narrow exception, not the starting point. That ordering matters in practice — when a classification is disputed before DOLE, the NLRC, or a court, the employer carrying the burden to show the specific exclusion applies, not the employee proving coverage.^[2] A job title, an employment contract clause, or a company policy that simply declares a role “exempt” carries no legal weight on its own; the actual facts of the job have to satisfy the specific test for whichever category is being invoked.

The Six Excluded Categories at a Glance

#	Category	Core Test	Typical Example
1	Government employees	Employed by the national government, a government agency, or a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter	Civil service employee, LGU staff
2	Managerial employees / officers or members of managerial staff	Primary duty is management, directs 2+ employees, and has real hiring/firing authority (managerial); or management-policy work with regular independent judgment and ≤20% unrelated tasks (managerial staff)	Department head, plant manager, genuine executive assistant to a managerial employee
3	Field personnel	Regularly works away from the principal office and actual hours cannot be determined with reasonable certainty	Unsupervised outside sales agent with a self-set schedule
4	Family members dependent on the employer for support	A relative of the employer who is supported by the employer and works within that household or family relationship, not as an ordinary hired employee	An employer’s child or sibling helping in a small family-owned store
5	Domestic workers / persons in personal service of another	Kasambahay performing household work under RA 10361, with its own separate hours-of-work statute	Live-in household helper, yaya, family cook
6	Workers paid by results	Genuine output-based pay (piece-rate, pakyaw) at a rate fixed under DOLE regulations, without employer control over how and when the work is done	Home-based, unsupervised piece-rate garment worker

1. Government Employees

Employees of the national government, its political subdivisions, and government-owned or controlled corporations with an original charter are governed by Civil Service laws and their own compensation and position-classification rules, not by the Labor Code’s Title I provisions.^[1] This exclusion is broader than hours of work alone — it reflects an entirely separate legal regime for public-sector employment, including a different set of leave benefits, a different disciplinary process, and no general right to strike. Government-owned or controlled corporations organized under the Corporation Code, without an original charter, are the main exception: their employees are generally covered by the Labor Code like private-sector workers. LaborCode.ph’s guide on whether government employees have labor rights covers this distinction, and the separate Job Order and Contract of Service categories, in full.

2. Managerial Employees and Officers/Members of Managerial Staff

Article 82 excludes two related but distinct groups: managerial employees, whose primary duty is managing the establishment or a department of it, who customarily direct two or more employees, and who have real hiring/firing authority or whose recommendations on those matters carry particular weight; and officers or members of the managerial staff, a broader category covering employees whose primary duty is work directly related to management policies, who customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment, and who spend no more than roughly 20% of their working hours on tasks unrelated to that management-policy work.^[2] Both tests come from Book III, Rule I, Section 2 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, and neither is satisfied by a job title alone — the Supreme Court has repeatedly reclassified “supervisors” as managerial staff, and just as often rejected an employer’s attempt to label a rank-and-file role as managerial to avoid overtime.^[3] Because this exclusion involves its own layered set of tests, comparison tables, and Supreme Court cases, LaborCode.ph covers it in full in a dedicated guide: Managerial Employees in the Philippines: Who Is Exempt From Overtime and Labor Standards?

3. Field Personnel

Field personnel are non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the employer’s principal place of business or branch office, and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.^[1] Both elements are required — working outside the office is not enough by itself. The Supreme Court’s controlling formulation asks whether the employer has, in practice, retained the ability to supervise and verify when and how long the employee actually works: a bus driver-conductor tracked by dispatchers and roadside inspectors was held not to be field personnel despite working entirely on the road,^[7] while Nestlé sales representatives whose only oversight was a morning report-in and afternoon report-out were properly classified as field personnel because nothing verified what happened during the hours between.^[6] LaborCode.ph’s dedicated guide, Who Qualifies as Field Personnel in the Philippines?, walks through the full two-part test, more Supreme Court cases, and common misclassification patterns.

4. Members of the Employer’s Family Dependent on the Employer for Support

Article 82 also excludes members of the employer’s family who are dependent on the employer for support.^[1] This is a narrow exclusion, and it is easy to misapply in either direction. It is meant for situations where the relationship is genuinely familial and the person is supported by the employer as a family member — not simply for any relative who happens to be on the payroll. Two facts tend to separate a true Article 82 family exclusion from an ordinary employment relationship that happens to involve relatives: whether the work performed is for the family’s own household benefit or for the employer’s business, and whether the person is genuinely dependent on the employer for support rather than receiving a market wage for services rendered to the business. A relative who is paid a regular salary, works fixed hours, and performs duties that benefit the employer’s business rather than the family household is generally still a covered employee, regardless of the family relationship — the exclusion protects informal family support arrangements, not a convenient label for keeping a relative off the payroll’s overtime line.

5. Domestic Workers and Persons in the Personal Service of Another

Kasambahay — general household helpers, yayas, cooks, gardeners, and other domestic workers — and other persons in the personal service of another are excluded from Title I of the Labor Code.^[1] That exclusion does not leave them without hours-of-work protection: Republic Act No. 10361, the Batas Kasambahay, creates a separate, dedicated framework specifically for this sector, including its own daily rest period of at least eight hours, weekly rest day, and leave entitlements distinct from the Title I rules that apply to other private-sector employees.^[4] The practical significance of this exclusion is jurisdictional rather than protective — a kasambahay’s hours-of-work dispute is resolved under RA 10361 and its implementing rules, not under Article 82’s general framework. LaborCode.ph’s full guide, Kasambahay Rights and Benefits: Wages, Rest Days, Leave, 13th Month and Termination, covers that separate framework in depth.

6. Workers Paid by Results

The final Article 82 exclusion covers workers paid by results, including those paid on piece-rate, “pakyaw,” or task-basis, where a reasonable output rate has been established by the Secretary of Labor through regulations, and provided the pay arrangement genuinely reflects output rather than time worked.^[1]^[2] This is the exclusion most frequently misapplied, because employers tend to assume that any piece-rate or commission-based pay structure automatically removes Title I coverage. The Supreme Court rejected exactly that assumption in Lambo v. NLRC, where two tailors paid on a piece-rate basis, but who worked fixed hours inside their employer’s shop under direct supervision, were held entitled to overtime pay and other Title I benefits — because the exclusion is meant for workers whose output-based pay reflects a genuine absence of employer control over their time, not merely for any employee whose wage happens to be computed per piece.^[8] Where the employer sets the hours, the workplace, and the manner of work, and simply calculates pay by multiplying a per-unit rate, the worker is generally still covered by Title I despite the piece-rate pay structure.

Comparison Table: All Six Exclusions Side by Side

Category	Governing Test	What Defeats the Exclusion	Alternative Coverage
Government employees	Original-charter government employment	Employment by a GOCC incorporated under the Corporation Code, without an original charter	Civil Service law and rules
Managerial employees	Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(b) — management, direction, hiring/firing authority	No real authority over hiring, firing, or promotion despite the title	None — falls back to full Title I coverage
Managerial staff	Book III, Rule I, Sec. 2(c) — policy work, independent judgment, ≤20% unrelated tasks	Spending most working hours on the same tasks as supervised staff	None — falls back to full Title I coverage
Field personnel	Regular fieldwork + unverifiable hours	GPS tracking, dispatch logs, checkpoints, or a fixed employer-set route	None — falls back to full Title I coverage
Family members dependent for support	Genuine family/household support relationship	Market wage paid for work performed for the employer’s business rather than the family household	None — falls back to full Title I coverage
Domestic workers	Kasambahay performing household work	Not applicable — the role itself defines the category	RA 10361, Batas Kasambahay
Workers paid by results	Genuine output-based pay with no employer control over time/manner of work	Fixed hours, fixed workplace, and direct supervision despite piece-rate pay	None — falls back to full Title I coverage

What the Exclusion Removes — and What It Does Not

Where an Article 82 exclusion genuinely applies, it removes the employee from the specific benefits found in Title I, Book Three of the Labor Code:^[1]

Overtime pay for work beyond eight hours a day.
Premium pay for work on rest days and special (non-working) days.
Holiday pay for regular holidays.
Night shift differential for work between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Service Incentive Leave under Article 95. See LaborCode.ph’s guide to Service Incentive Leave under Article 95 for the underlying entitlement and its own exemptions.

What an Article 82 exclusion does not remove, regardless of category:

SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG coverage, which apply independently of Title I status.
Security of tenure and due process rights on discipline or dismissal.
Maternity, paternity, solo parent, and other statutory leave benefits granted under separate laws with their own coverage rules.
Retirement pay under Republic Act No. 7641, unless a more favorable plan already applies.

A separate point worth flagging: the Article 82 tests are not the same tests used to decide whether an employee may join a union (Article 219(m)) or whether an employee is excluded from 13th-month pay (Presidential Decree No. 851). An employee can fail the Article 82 managerial-staff test and remain entitled to overtime, while still being excluded from a union under a different definition — or the reverse. Each question requires its own separate analysis.

Common Misclassification Problems and Red Flags

Department-wide or job-title-wide exclusions. Classifying an entire role as exempt by department or title, without assessing whether each employee’s actual duties meet the specific test.
Assuming location decides field-personnel status. Treating any employee who works outside a fixed office as field personnel, without checking whether GPS, dispatch logs, or fixed routes already defeat the exclusion.
Treating commission or piece-rate pay as automatically exempt. Ignoring that the workers-paid-by-results exclusion also requires an absence of employer control over the employee’s time and manner of work.
Using the family exclusion for a relative on a real payroll. Classifying a relative who is paid a market wage and performs ordinary business duties as exempt on the theory that they are “family,” without the genuine dependency-for-support relationship the exclusion requires.
Applying the general Title I framework to a kasambahay. Domestic workers are not simply uncovered — they have their own statute, and applying the wrong framework can misstate what they are actually entitled to.
No documentation behind the classification. An employer relying only on a job title or organizational chart, without job descriptions, supervision records, or pay-structure documentation, has little to show if the classification is challenged.

Supreme Court Cases on Article 82 Coverage

1. Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr. (G.R. No. 79255, January 20, 1992)

Nestlé Philippines sought to exclude its sales personnel from holiday pay as field personnel. The union argued that a morning report-in and afternoon report-out requirement amounted to supervision defeating the exclusion. The Supreme Court sided with the company: that reporting requirement confirmed when the workday began and ended but did not let the company verify what happened during the hours in between, so the sales personnel remained genuinely unsupervised field personnel.^[6] Practical lesson: minimal administrative bookending of a workday is not the same as supervising the hours actually worked in the field.

2. Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista (G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005)

A commission-paid bus driver-conductor claimed unpaid Service Incentive Leave; the company argued he was field personnel because he worked on the road and was paid by commission. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that inspectors, dispatch logs, and fixed routes let the company determine his actual hours with reasonable certainty, and that commission-based pay does not by itself establish field personnel status.^[7] Practical lesson: the field-personnel test turns on whether supervision followed the employee, not on where the employee physically worked or how they were paid.

3. National Sugar Refineries Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 101761, March 24, 1993)

A group of supervisory employees was reclassified as managerial staff following a job evaluation program, losing overtime, rest-day, and holiday pay in exchange for a salary increase. The Supreme Court upheld the reclassification, holding that the Article 219(m) union-eligibility test and the Article 82 managerial-staff exclusion are separate legal questions — an employee can remain “supervisory” for union purposes while still meeting the broader managerial-staff test for overtime exclusion.^[3] Practical lesson: winning a union-eligibility argument does not automatically decide the separate overtime-exclusion question, and the reverse is equally true.

4. Lambo v. NLRC (G.R. No. 111042, October 26, 1999)

Two tailors at a shop were paid on a piece-rate basis for each item completed. After their employment ended, they claimed unpaid overtime and other Title I benefits; the shop argued they were excluded workers paid by results. The Supreme Court held they remained covered employees: they worked fixed hours inside the shop, under the owner’s direct control and supervision, and piece-rate pay alone does not create the Article 82 exclusion where the employer otherwise controls the time and manner of the work.^[8] Practical lesson: the workers-paid-by-results exclusion protects genuinely autonomous, unsupervised output-based work — not any job where pay happens to be computed per piece.

Consequences of Misapplying an Exclusion

Where an employee wrongly denied overtime, premium pay, holiday pay, night differential, or Service Incentive Leave did not actually meet the claimed exclusion’s test, the employer is generally liable for the unpaid amounts from the date each benefit should have been paid, subject to the three-year prescriptive period for money claims under Article 306 of the Labor Code. Because misclassification decisions are typically applied to an entire role, department, or job title rather than one individual, a single wrong classification can compound into a claim covering every employee treated the same way, going back as far as the prescriptive period allows. A labor arbiter or the NLRC may also award attorney’s fees where wages were unlawfully withheld, and legal interest can apply to amounts ultimately due.

What to Do Next

If you are an employee

Identify which of the six categories your employer is actually invoking, and compare your real duties, supervision, and pay structure against that category’s specific test — not your job title.
For a managerial, managerial-staff, or field-personnel claim, review LaborCode.ph’s dedicated guides for the detailed test and worked examples.
Keep records: schedules, supervisor instructions, GPS or tracking logs, payroll computations, and any written job description.
Raise the classification internally first where that is safe to do, since some exclusions are applied by mistake rather than by design.
File a SEnA Request for Assistance with DOLE if the matter is not resolved internally, before pursuing a formal money claim.

If you are an employer

Classify roles individually against each category’s specific test, not by department or title alone.
Document the factual basis for every exclusion — actual duties, supervision arrangements, and pay structure — and keep that documentation current.
Audit any role paid by commission, piece rate, or pakyaw against the actual level of control exercised over hours and work method, not just the pay formula.
Review the baseline working hours rules in the Philippines for every role that does not clearly meet one of the six exclusions.
Where classification is doubtful, default to full Title I coverage rather than risk a multi-year claim across an entire workforce category.

Employer Compliance Checklist

Every role currently treated as Article 82-exempt is classified individually against the specific test for its category, not by department or title.
Job descriptions, supervision records, and pay-structure documentation support each claimed exclusion and are kept current.
Field-work roles are reassessed whenever new tracking tools (GPS, check-ins, dispatch logs) are introduced, since these can defeat the field-personnel exclusion going forward.
Piece-rate, pakyaw, and commission-based roles are evaluated for actual employer control over hours and work method, not assumed exempt based on the pay formula alone.
Any relative on payroll paid a market wage for ordinary business duties is treated as a covered employee, not classified under the family-support exclusion.
Kasambahay and other domestic workers are administered under RA 10361, not the general Title I framework.
HR keeps documentation ready to defend any exclusion if questioned in a SEnA conference, DOLE inspection, or NLRC proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 82 cover part-time and probationary employees?

Yes. Employment status (regular, probationary, project, or casual) is a separate classification from the Article 82 coverage question. Part-time and probationary employees are covered by Title I unless they independently fall within one of the six excluded categories.

Can an employer simply declare a position exempt in the employment contract?

No. A contract clause or company policy declaring a role “exempt” has no legal effect on its own. The actual facts of the job must satisfy the specific legal test for whichever Article 82 category the employer is invoking.

Is every remote or work-from-home employee treated as field personnel?

No. Field personnel status depends on whether actual hours can be verified, not on whether the employee works away from a physical office. A remote employee whose hours are tracked through logins, task systems, or scheduled check-ins is generally still covered.

If I am excluded from overtime under Article 82, am I also excluded from 13th-month pay?

Not necessarily. The Article 82 exclusion and the 13th-month pay exclusion under Presidential Decree No. 851 use different tests. It is possible to be excluded from overtime as managerial staff under Article 82 while still qualifying for 13th-month pay under the separate Article 219(m) definition.

Are kasambahay completely without hours-of-work protection?

No. They are excluded from the general Title I framework but are protected instead by their own dedicated statute, the Batas Kasambahay (RA 10361), which sets separate rest-period, leave, and working-condition rules for domestic workers.

Does paying an employee a fixed monthly salary instead of daily or hourly wages create an exclusion?

No. Being paid monthly, rather than daily or hourly, does not by itself exclude an employee from Title I coverage. Coverage depends on which of the six named categories applies, not on the pay frequency or structure.

What should I do if I believe I was wrongly classified as exempt?

Identify the specific category your employer is relying on, compare your actual duties and supervision against that category’s test, and raise the issue in writing. If unresolved, file a SEnA Request for Assistance with DOLE. Money claims for unpaid Title I benefits are generally subject to a three-year prescriptive period, so acting promptly protects your claim.

Conclusion

Article 82 is built around a simple default: employees are covered unless they fall within one of six specific, narrowly defined categories, and the employer carries the burden of showing that a genuine exclusion applies. Job titles, pay formulas, and physical work location are all common shortcuts employers reach for, and all three are legally insufficient on their own. Whether the question involves a manager, a field agent, a piece-rate worker, a household helper, or a relative on the payroll, the same discipline applies: identify the specific category being invoked, then test the actual facts against that category’s specific legal standard — not the label attached to the job.

Sources and Legal Citations

Labor Code and Implementing Rules

[1] Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Code of the Philippines, Book III, Article 82 (Coverage). Supports: the general Title I coverage rule and the six named excluded categories. Status: verified official source.

[2] LawPhil Project, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book III, Rule I. Supports: the implementing definitions for managerial employees, managerial staff, field personnel, and workers paid by results. Status: verified official source.

DOLE Guidance and Statutes

[4] Official Gazette, Republic Act No. 10361, Batas Kasambahay. Supports: the separate hours-of-work and rest-period framework for domestic workers, distinct from the general Title I coverage rule. Status: verified official source.

[5] DOLE-BWC/NWPC, Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits, 2024 Edition. Supports: the Article 82 coverage rule and each excluded category restated in administrative guidance. Status: verified official source.

Supreme Court Decisions

[6] Union of Filipro Employees v. Vivar, Jr., G.R. No. 79255, January 20, 1992, Supreme Court of the Philippines, LawPhil Project. Supports: field personnel status requires genuinely unverifiable field hours, not merely work performed away from the office. Status: verified official source.

[7] Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Supreme Court E-Library. Supports: the field-personnel test turns on employer supervision, not location or pay structure. Status: verified official source.

[3] National Sugar Refineries Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 101761, March 24, 1993, Supreme Court of the Philippines, LawPhil Project. Supports: the Article 82 managerial-staff exclusion is a separate legal question from the Article 219(m) union-eligibility test. Status: verified official source.

[8] Lambo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 111042, October 26, 1999, Supreme Court of the Philippines, LawPhil Project. Supports: piece-rate workers supervised and controlled by the employer remain covered employees despite output-based pay. Status: verified official source.

Prepared by: LaborCode.ph Editorial Team
Editorial review: Reviewed under the LaborCode.ph Content Review Policy
Sources rechecked as of: September 17, 2026
Last materially reviewed: September 17, 2026
Article-level legal review status: No named lawyer-review credit has been assigned to this article.
Legal review invitation: Qualified Philippine labor lawyers interested in reviewing this article or suggesting a correction may contact LaborCode.ph.

This guide is for general educational and legal-information purposes only and is not legal advice. Whether a specific employee falls within an Article 82 exclusion depends on the actual facts of the job, the degree of supervision, and current jurisprudence. Employees and employers may need assistance from DOLE, the NLRC, another appropriate government authority, or a qualified Philippine labor lawyer. LaborCode.ph is an independent information platform and is not a government agency, tribunal or law firm.