COMPENSABLE TRAVEL TIME FROM A BOARDING HOUSE TO A PROJECT SITE (Philippine Legal Perspective)
1. Why the Question Matters
In construction, mining, power-plant work and other project-based undertakings, employees often live in barracks, staff houses, or rented boarding facilities that are separate from—but fairly close to—the actual project site. Contractors frequently ask whether the “door-to-door” travel between the temporary residence and the work front is hours worked that must be paid under Philippine labour standards. Getting this wrong can expose an employer to (a) money claims for unpaid wages/overtime, (b) criminal prosecution for violation of the Labor Code, and (c) solidary liability for principals under Department Order (“DO”) 174-17 on contracting/sub-contracting.
2. Statutory & Regulatory Framework
| Source | Key Provision |
|---|---|
| Labor Code (PD 442), Title I, Book III | Art. 87 (now renumbered Art. 93): Hours Worked – requires payment for “all time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at a prescribed workplace and all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.” |
| IRR, Book III, Rule I | §4 defines “hours worked.” §5(a)(3) adds: “Travel that is part of an employee’s principal activity… shall be considered hours worked.” |
| DOLE Handbook on Workers’ Statutory Monetary Benefits (latest rev. 2024) | Clarifies that ordinary home-to-work travel is not compensable unless the employee is required to report first to a pick-up point or command center to receive instructions or tools, in which case the travel from that point to the job site is compensable. |
| Department Order 13-98 (Construction Safety & Health) | Indirectly relevant: requires contractors to provide safe transport/shuttle; if transport is employer-controlled the time may be compensable. |
| DOLE Advisory No. 04-10 | Recognises that time spent “traveling to various workplaces during the workday” is paid time; cites field-personnel exception (Art. 82). |
3. Supreme Court & NLRC Jurisprudence
Although no case is titled “boarding house-to-site,” the Court has repeatedly applied Art. 87 in analogous scenarios:
Auto Bus Transport v. Bautista (G.R. 156367, 16 May 2005) Travel from Manila to Cagayan Valley was clearly work for bus drivers because their “principal activity” is to drive. The Court emphasised employer control rather than location.
Petron v. Somes (G.R. 127718, 12 Oct 1999) Customs tanker inspectors’ time spent boarding launches to reach ocean-anchored tankers was held compensable since the launch ride was integral to the inspection work.
Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz (G.R. 195872, 23 July 2013) Clarified who are field personnel: those “whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.” If the employer can track the travel time (e.g., shuttle logbook, GPS), the field-personnel exclusion will not apply.
Cebu Shipyard v. Larsen/Lumayag (G.R. 175492, 15 Aug 2012) Shipyard workers’ travel by company launch between shore and dry-dock was ruled compensable because the vessel served as the “company gate.”
Damasco v. NLRC (G.R. 192558, 25 Jan 2017) Time a security guard spent traveling between two successively assigned posts during the same shift was compensable; ordinary commute before the first post and after the last post was not.
4. Core Legal Tests
| Element | Guiding Questions | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Control | Does the employer dictate the worker’s movement, schedule, or means of travel? Are disciplinary consequences possible for late arrival? | If yes, travel time is usually hours worked. |
| Integral and Indispensable | Is the travel an inherent part of the employee’s principal activities (e.g., moving heavy tools to site)? | If yes, compensable regardless of distance. |
| Establishment Boundary (“Company Gate” doctrine) | Where does the working day realistically begin—boarding house, pick-up point, project gate, or work front? The “gate” is the first place where the employee’s presence is required. | Travel after crossing the company-gate line is presumptively paid time. |
| Field Personnel Exclusion (Art. 82) | Are the employees “engaged on field work” and is supervision impossible? Are daily time records (DTR) kept? | If both questions are answered yes, employer may treat them as field personnel; travel is generally not compensable. |
| Special Industry Rules | Does a special statute/DO apply (e.g., seafarers, BOSCHOP drivers, BPO “shuttling after 10 PM,” mining “portal-to-portal” rule)? | These may mandate additional pay. |
5. Typical Construction-Project Scenarios
| Scenario | Likely Treatment | Caveats |
|---|---|---|
| A. Barracks inside the fenced project site | Not compensable; the “company gate” is usually the barracks exit. | Some CBAs choose to start pay at actual clock-in. |
| B. Boarding house outside but employer-provided shuttle is mandatory | Travel on shuttle is compensable (control + integral). | If shuttle is voluntary and public transport is allowed, time may be non-compensable. |
| C. Employee walks 500 m from rented room to gate | Ordinary commute → non-compensable. | Unless the employer requires grouping at 6 AM in front of the house. |
| D. Daily pick-up at muster point (e.g., depot) followed by 1-hr ride to remote tunnel portal | Travel from muster point to portal is compensable (employer-designated point). | Time spent commuting from home to depot is not paid. |
| E. Rotating “off-shore” project where workers are ferried by company boat from island dorm to barge | Boat ride is compensable (Petron v. Somes analogy). | If the dorm is inside the same floating terminal, the ride may be a minor movement within premises. |
| F. “Stay-in” arrangement w/ 12-hr on-call status | Waiting time within barracks during off-duty hours is not automatically hours worked unless the employee is “engaged to wait.” | Evaluate waiting-to-be-engaged vs. engaged-to-wait test (Philippine Airlines v. NLRC). |
6. Interaction with Other Labor Standards
Overtime & Night Shift Differential Once travel is counted as hours worked it must be included when computing OT (Art. 88) and NSD (Art. 86).
One-day Rest in Seven If travel occurs on the employee’s rest day because the employer required early mobilisation for Monday start-up, rest-day premium under Art. 93 applies.
Wage Distortion / CBA Where a CBA fixes start/end points differently from the default rule, the CBA prevails (Art. 254, Constitution).
Government-Mandated Wage-Order Compliance Regional wage boards allow accommodation or lodging to be credited against wages only when there is a written agreement and when the facility is voluntarily accepted (§4, NWPC Guidelines). Crediting must not erase compensability of travel time.
7. Employer Risk Management Checklist
| ✔ | Action Point | Why |
|---|---|---|
| ☐ | Define the “company gate” in employment contracts or policies. | Clarity reduces disputes. |
| ☐ | Issue a stand-alone memo on “Travel Time Pay Policy.” | Compliance with Art. 124 due-notice requirement. |
| ☐ | Keep verifiable DTR (e.g., biometric at shuttle pick-up, GPS logs). | To invoke field-personnel defense if applicable. |
| ☐ | Structure shuttle schedules to leave only after start of paid shift, or pay the travel time. | Avoids hidden overtime. |
| ☐ | If project is remote, embed travel pay into the daily wage rate (but state it). | Allowed by jurisprudence if clear, freely agreed, and wage-order–compliant. |
| ☐ | Audit contractor compliance (DO 174). | Principal is solidarily liable for unpaid travel time of subcontractor’s workers. |
8. Employee Claims and Remedies
Money Claims Before the NLRC or DOLE Field Office • Prescriptive period: three (3) years (Art. 306). • Complainant must show (a) duty to travel; (b) employer control; (c) non-payment. • Employer has burden to produce employment records (Art. 118).
Criminal Aspect Non-payment of legally required wages is an offense under Art. 303. Conviction rare but back-pay is almost automatic.
Social Security System (SSS) & Employees’ Compensation Accidents “arising out of and in the course of employment,” including portal-to-portal travel in employer conveyance, are compensable under PD 626. Commuting accidents from rented house may be excluded unless employer transport is used.
9. Tax & Accounting Angle
- Wage is taxable compensation income under the NIRC; travel time pay is not a per-diem and is therefore subject to withholding tax and SSS/PhilHealth/Pag-IBIG contributions.
- Per-diem allowances that are “accountsable” (liquidated with receipts) are not wages and may remain tax-exempt, but non-accountable per-diems effectively substitute wages and are taxable.
10. Comparative Glimpse & International Influence
| Jurisdiction | Rule | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| US FLSA “Portal-to-Portal” Act (1947) | Home-to-work generally not paid; integral and indispensable travel time is paid. | DOLE Handbook language mirrors FLSA concepts. |
| ILO Convention 1 (Hours of Work, 1919) | Establishes 8-hour norm; silent on travel time but jurisprudence evolved to include employer-controlled travel. | Philippines ratified; influences interpretation. |
11. Practical Drafting Tip for a Company Policy
Start-of-Shift and Travel-Time Pay Clause “The employee’s paid shift shall commence once the employee boards the company-provided shuttle at the designated Muster Point or, where no shuttle is provided, upon clock-in at the Site Gate. Travel from the Boarding House to the Muster Point is considered personal commute time and is not compensable, except when the Company expressly requires the employee to transport heavy tools or equipment during such travel, in which case the time spent carrying said articles shall be treated as paid working time.”
12. Conclusion
Philippine law does not treat all “boarding-house-to-site” travel alike. The decisive factors are control, necessity to the principal activity, and traceability of hours. Employers that err on the side of excluding the time without a documented basis risk statutory and contractual liability. Conversely, paying for clearly non-compensable commute time inflates labour cost and sets an unintended precedent. A well-crafted, written policy—aligned with Art. 87, IRR §5, and the on-the-ground realities of each project—is therefore essential. Where doubt exists, remember the Labor Code’s principle of liberal construction in favour of labor (Art. 4). When in doubt, pay it out—or at least secure a DOLE ruling in writing.
This article synthesises statutes, implementing rules, DOLE issuances, and Philippine jurisprudence as of June 13 2025. It is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for tailored legal advice.