Title
Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. vs. Margallo
Case
G.R. No. 181393
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2009
A sales engineer wins reimbursement for car loan payments and unpaid sales commissions but loses her claim for cash incentives.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 181393)

Facts:

  • Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. and its President, Abelardo M. Gonzales, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against Edna Margallo.
  • Margallo was employed as a Sales Engineer starting August 3, 1999.
  • She availed a car loan program after being named "Salesman of the Year," making a down payment of P201,000.00 for a Toyota Corolla.
  • Monthly amortization was P10,302.00, with Margallo responsible for P5,302.00 and Grandteq covering P5,000.00.
  • On December 29, 2003, Margallo was accused of moonlighting and placed under preventive suspension.
  • Margallo claimed she was following orders from her superiors in response to the accusations.
  • In January 2004, she was encouraged to resign with a promise of payment for her commissions and benefits.
  • Margallo resigned on January 13, 2004, but later claimed Grandteq did not pay her commissions of P87,508.00 or refund her car loan payments.
  • Grandteq sold her car for P550,000.00 after her resignation.
  • The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint on July 11, 2005, for lack of merit.
  • The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision on October 18, 2006, ordering Grandteq to refund her car loan payments and pay her commissions and attorney's fees.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's decision on January 21, 2008, leading to the current petition by Grandteq and Gonzales.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Court upheld the NLRC's decision, declaring the forfeiture clause in the car loan agreement null and void as it contradicted public policy and morals.
  • The Court affirmed Margallo's entitlement to unpaid sales commissions, ruling...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts that the forfeiture clause in the car loan agreement was unconscionable and against public policy.
  • The Court emphasized that contracts should not exploit employees or infringe upon their rights.
  • Margallo had made significant paymen...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.