1. Overview

At first blush it looks as though Philippine managers can stroll into the office whenever they please, because the Labor Code expressly removes them from “hours-of-work” regulation. In practice, however, there is no blanket legal immunity from punctuality requirements. The “exemption” applies only to statutory labor-standards benefits (overtime pay, night-shift differential, service incentive leave, etc.). Tardiness remains a matter of management prerogative and—if it becomes habitual—a just cause for discipline or even dismissal.

2. Statutory Basis for the Hours-of-Work Exemption

Article 82, Labor Code. Book III, Title I (Working Conditions and Rest Periods) “shall apply … but not to … managerial employees.” (Book Three – Conditions of Employment, P.D. 442, Labor Code)
Because they are excluded from this title, managers are not entitled to the 8-hour limit (Art. 83) or overtime premiums (Art. 87). They may be required to punch a time clock, but that is a business choice, not a legal mandate.

3. Who Is a “Managerial Employee”?

The Code and implementing rules define them as those whose primary duty is managing the enterprise or a division, who customarily direct at least two workers, and who possess authority to hire, fire, or effectively recommend such actions. (Managerial Employees - Labor Law PH)
Jurisprudence stresses the substance of the job, not the title. Courts look at actual duties, level of discretion, and participation in policy-making when resolving coverage disputes.

4. Tardiness Under Philippine Labor Law

There is no statute that fixes grace periods, allowable minutes, or mandatory salary deductions for late arrival. Instead:

“No Work, No Pay.” Managers, like rank-and-file staff, are paid only for work actually rendered; proportionate deductions for minutes or hours lost to tardiness are valid under Art. 113 as “authorized by law.” (P.D. No. 442 - The Lawphil Project)
Management prerogative. Employers may adopt timekeeping systems, set core hours, and impose progressive discipline, provided rules are written, reasonable, and uniformly enforced. (Tardiness Penalties Under Philippine Labor Law - respicio.ph)

5. Is There a “Managerial Exemption” from Tardiness Rules?

Legally, no. The hours-of-work exemption simply means DOLE cannot compel overtime pay or limit scheduling. Tardiness is a performance-and-conduct issue, not a labor-standards issue. An employer may:

Waive time-clocking for senior managers and evaluate them on output; or
Retain strict logging (especially in industries requiring real-time supervision).

Either way, late arrivals count against the employee if company policy so provides. The only thing a manager truly “avoids” is the statutory premium for staying late to catch up.

6. Salary Deductions and the “No Work, No Pay” Principle

Article 113 allows deductions only when authorized by law, the worker, or a CBA. DOLE and the courts treat minute-based deductions for lateness as authorized because they merely reflect time not worked. But fines or penalties over and above the wage equivalent need explicit contractual or policy authority to survive challenge. (Understanding Reasonable Wage Deductions for Employee Tardiness Under ...)

7. Discipline & Dismissal for Habitual Tardiness

When lateness becomes “gross and habitual neglect of duty” it constitutes a just cause for termination under Article 297(b). (G.R. No. 204288 - The Lawphil Project) The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied this to managerial staff:

Case	Position	Core Ruling
Acebedo Optical v. NLRC (2007)	Area Manager	Written warnings for tardiness upheld; dismissal invalid only because due-process steps were skipped. (G.R. No. 150171 July 17, 2007 - The Lawphil Project)
Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket (2013)	Category Buyer (managerial)	Habitual tardiness + poor performance justified transfer and later dismissal. (G.R. No. 198534 July 3, 2013 - The Lawphil Project)
R.B. Michael Press v. Galit (2008)	Pressroom Head	190 instances of lateness supported termination; Court labelled habitual tardiness “neglect of duty.” (G.R. No. 153510. February 13, 2008 (Case Brief / Digest))
IBC-13 v. Dela Cruz (2020)	Television director	Two late arrivals plus other lapses equated to gross negligence; dismissal sustained. (G.R. No. 229013 - The Lawphil Project)

Key procedural notes

Twin-Notice Rule. Even for managers, the employer must issue (a) a detailed show-cause memo and (b) a termination notice after hearing.
Proportionality. Single or isolated lateness is not enough; courts look for a pattern.

8. Public Sector Nuance – Civil Service Rules

Government managers fall under CSC Memorandum Circular 1-91, which brands an employee habitually tardy if late 10 times in a month for two months in a semester; penalties range from reprimand to dismissal on the fourth offense. (MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 1-91 February 14, 1991 - The Lawphil Project) These metrics do not bind private firms, but they illustrate what regulators view as “habitual.”

9. Best-Practice Policy Checklist for Employers

Define coverage. State clearly whether managers must clock in, observe core hours, or operate on flexible schedules.
Reasonable grace periods. Ten- to fifteen-minute windows are common but not required.
Progressive discipline ladder. Verbal → written → suspension → dismissal; align with Art. 297 grounds.
Transparent deductions. Show the computation (e.g., monthly salary ÷ 22 days ÷ 8 hours).
Document everything. Time logs, acknowledgments of receipt of rules, and notices become crucial in litigation.

10. Practical Tips for Managerial Employees

Know your deliverables. If your KPI is output-based, negotiate a flexitime clause.
Communicate early. Inform HR if traffic, emergencies, or health issues cause delays.
Keep evidence. Emails, chat timestamps, or VPN logs can rebut accusations of tardiness.

11. Take-Aways

A Philippine manager is exempt only from statutory hours-of-work protections—not from basic punctuality or company discipline.
Tardiness deductions are legitimate so long as they mirror unworked time and observe Art. 113.
Habitual lateness, especially coupled with a position of trust, can be valid ground for dismissal—but only after due process.

This material is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for formal legal advice.