Short answer. Yes. Article 1418 says that when the law fixes or authorizes fixing a maximum number of labor hours, and a contract has a laborer working longer than that maximum, he may demand additional compensation for the service he renders beyond that time limit.
What the law says
When the law fixes, or authorizes the fixing of the maximum number of hours of labor, and a contract is entered into whereby a laborer undertakes to work longer than the maximum thus fixed, he may demand additional compensation for service rendered beyond the time limit.
Civil Code, Article 1418 — Excess Hours of Labor. Read the full provision →
A contract cannot erase your right to pay for the excess hours
Article 1418 addresses what happens when a labor contract conflicts with a legally fixed maximum on working hours. It applies whenever the law fixes, or authorizes the fixing of the maximum number of hours of labor, and the contract nonetheless has the laborer undertake to work longer than the maximum thus fixed. Rather than treating the excess-hours provision as simply void and unenforceable in every respect, the article gives the laborer an affirmative right: he may demand additional compensation for service rendered beyond the time limit.
The right exists regardless of what the contract says about pay
This entitlement does not depend on the contract itself promising extra pay for the extra hours. The article's premise is that a contract requiring work beyond the legal maximum is already out of step with the law, and the remedy it supplies is compensation for the hours actually worked past that limit — the laborer is not stuck accepting a flat rate that assumed only the legal maximum, simply because that is what the written agreement said before the excess hours were actually worked. The right attaches to the hours actually rendered beyond the limit, not to what the contract happened to specify about compensation.
Why the rule works this way
Legal maximums on working hours exist to protect laborers from being pressed into excessive hours without adequate compensation. If an employer could simply have a laborer sign a contract exceeding that maximum and pay nothing extra for the additional time, the protective purpose of the hours limit would be hollowed out. Article 1418 closes that gap by making sure that even where a contract does push past the legal maximum, the laborer is not left uncompensated for the time actually worked beyond what the law permits as the standard, regardless of what the written contract itself says about pay for those extra hours. The provision essentially treats the excess-hours portion of the arrangement as an occasion for additional compensation rather than as something the laborer simply has to absorb because he agreed to it.