Facts:

The case involves Edwin Alacon Atienza (petitioner), who filed a complaint against TKC Heavy Industries Corporation and its president, Leon Tio (respondents), over claims of nonpayment of wages, commissions, allowances, reimbursements, damages, and attorney's fees. Atienza started his employment with the respondents as a sales agent on October 1, 2011, with a monthly salary of PHP 11,080, along with allowances and a commission structure. Over his employment, he successfully closed several sales, primarily with local government units (LGUs).

Despite being recognized as one of the top-performing sales agents of TKC, Atienza’s working relationship with the company deteriorated by February 2013. He learned that TKC had assigned other sales agents to follow up on his pending transactions with various LGUs, allegedly due to claims of fraudulent dealings attributed to him, including an unexplained cash advance of PHP 7,000,000.

Frustrated by the lack of payment for his outstanding

...

Facts:

Parties and Employment Background

• Petitioner: Edwin Alacon Atienza, a sales agent employed by TKC Heavy Industries Corporation.
• Respondents: TKC Heavy Industries Corporation and its president, Leon B. Tio.
• Atienza was hired on October 1, 2011 with a compensation package that included a base monthly salary (initially P11,080.00, later increased to P11,856.00), cellphone and car maintenance allowances, a 3% basic commission, and a 13th month pay.

Nature of Employment and Duties

• Atienza’s role as a sales agent involved promoting TKC’s products, interfacing with and negotiating on behalf of the company with prospective buyers, and facilitating the processing of sale transactions.
• A significant portion of his sales were from local government units (LGUs), and he was recognized as a top-performing agent with assignments both in Luzon and in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
• He was even instructed to assist another sales agent, Virgilio Quijada, in generating sales in other areas of Mindanao.

Emergence of Dispute and Allegations

• In February 2013, Atienza alleged that his working relationship deteriorated when Tio and TKC staff ceased communication, despite his continued efforts to close pending deals.
• Atienza claimed that his persistent performance led to the closing of projects in Caloocan, Quezon City, and Surigao del Sur.
• He also alleged that respondents had sent other agents to handle his pending deals and that this was connected to alleged fraudulent dealings on his part – including an unexplained cash advance of P7,000,000.00.

Legal Actions Initiated by Atienza

• After demanding payment of unpaid salaries, allowances, commissions, and reimbursement for expenses incurred in the course of his work, Atienza issued a written demand on March 27, 2013.
• With respondents failing to respond, he filed his complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on April 10, 2013, seeking nonpayment of wages, commissions, allowances, reimbursement, and damages (moral and exemplary) plus attorney’s fees.
• Respondents countered by alleging that at an internal sales meeting (December 28, 2012), Atienza had already manifested his intent to resign, and that he had abandoned his employment effective January 2013.

Proceedings and Rulings in Lower Forums

• Labor Arbiter Decision (September 30, 2013)
• The Labor Arbiter found merit in Atienza’s claim for commissions based on his consistent and “unrelenting efforts” as evidenced by text messages and communications with TKC staff and LGU contacts.
• The Arbiter disputed the respondents’ assertion regarding the cash advance, noting inconsistencies such as the check being drawn against the account of Zenaida Gil and issued to Ramil Bautista, without sufficient proof it was for Atienza.
• The decision also awarded moral and exemplary damages and ordered payment of benefits for a period extending from January 15 to March 15, 2013.
• NLRC Ruling
• The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaint on grounds including the contention that Atienza had effectively resigned from TKC.
• The tribunal noted the absence of proof of continued performance after January 2013 and questioned the evidence of his involvement in the transactions post alleged abandonment.
• Specific claims for commissions on pending projects (especially for Quezon City and Caloocan) were rejected, and arguments regarding his territorial assignment (e.g., for Surigao del Sur) were affirmed.
• Court of Appeals Decision
• The CA affirmed the NLRC’s reversal by highlighting that Atienza’s communications and conduct suggested a severance of employment and that he had effectively resigned.
• The CA determined that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s decision and dismissed Atienza’s claims accordingly.

Evidence on Continued Performance and Commission Claims

• Text messages and email exchanges indicate that Atienza continued to be involved in sales operations up to February 2013, coordinating with TKC staff and LGU officials.
• Internal communications, including a Notice for Investigation dated April 15, 2013, demonstrated that TKC still treated him as an employee beyond the alleged January resignation.
• Despite evidence of his ongoing performance in pending projects, there was a divergence regarding entitlement to commissions, particularly for deals consummated after his effective resignation.
• Notably, the Surigao del Sur commission dispute involved arguments of joint agency with Quijada, and respondents contended that commission payments were made to the agent assigned to that area.

Dispute Regarding the P7,000,000.00 Cash Advance

• Respondents maintained that a cash advance was issued (as evidenced by vouchers and a check) following Atienza’s request, involving the personal account of Zenaida Gil and the check made payable to Ramil Bautista.
• Atienza, however, denied receiving any advance and disputed the irregularities and defects in the documentary evidence, including signature discrepancies and non-standard procedure in processing.

Issue:

Nature of Atienza’s Severance from Employment

• Did Atienza voluntarily resign from TKC, or was his employment terminated by the company?
• What is the evidentiary basis concerning his resignation given conflicting claims by the parties and examined communications?

Entitlement to Payment of Salaries, Benefits, and Commissions

• Given the alleged resignation and the period when Atienza continued rendering services (up to February 2013), is he entitled to wages and benefits beyond the said date?
• Are the commissions to be paid for the completed and pending sales transactions (specifically for the Caloocan, Quezon City, and Surigao del Sur projects) justified under the terms of his employment and the law on agency?
• How should the alleged irregular cash advance be treated in setting off against his monetary claims?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Assessment of Continued Employment

• The Court distinguished the factual inquiry regarding Atienza’s resignation by focusing on the evidence showing he continued to perform services for TKC until February 2013, despite his earlier expressed intent to resign.

• Internal text messages, email correspondence, and the Notice for Investigation were significant in affirming his continued engagement and undermining respondents’ assertion of an effective resignation as early as January 2013.

Application of the Law on Agency in Commission Claims

• In the absence of a specific commission agreement or internal policy regulating commissions, the court applied fundamental principles of agency whereby a sales agent (who is both an employee and an agent) is entitled to remuneration based on his contributions to consummated deals.
• The equitable commission doctrine was invoked to award commissions for transactions consummated shortly after the effective termination of the agency, provided the agent’s efforts were instrumental in closing the deal.

Limited Review in Labor Cases

• The appellate review under Rule 45 is circumscribed to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error, thereby deferring to the findings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter on factual matters where substantial evidence exists.
• The Court emphasized that while questions of fact are generally not re-examined on appeal, conflicting evidence in this case warranted a closer review regarding the effective period of employment and the subsequent entitlement to benefits.

Evidentiary Basis Against Cash Advance Claims

• The court noted that the cash advance evidence was internally inconsistent – such as the funds being processed through a personal rather than the official account, the anomalous payee designation, and signature discrepancies – and therefore failed to establish that Atienza received the amou

...continue reading