Case Summary (G.R. No. 156367)
Administrative Proceedings and Arbiter’s Decision
Respondent filed for illegal dismissal, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. Labor Arbiter Tabingan found no illegal dismissal but awarded respondent ₱78,117.87 (13th month pay) and ₱13,788.05 (service incentive leave pay), dismissing other claims.
NLRC’s Modification on 13th Month Pay
The NLRC applied PD 851 Sec. 3(e), excluding purely commission-paid employees from 13th month pay. It deleted the 13th month pay award but affirmed the service incentive leave pay.
Court of Appeals’ Affirmation
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s appeal, upholding the NLRC’s modification and affirming the service incentive leave award in its entirety.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondent is entitled to service incentive leave pay despite commission-only compensation.
- Whether the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 applies to the claim for service incentive leave pay.
Entitlement to Service Incentive Leave
Article 95 of the Labor Code grants five days’ paid leave to employees with at least one year’s service. IRR Rule V, Sec. 1(d) excludes only “field personnel”—those whose work away from the employer’s premises is unsupervised and whose hours cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Commission-based or task-based pay alone does not preclude entitlement unless the employee qualifies as field personnel.
Definition and Test for Field Personnel
“Field personnel” are non-agricultural employees who regularly work away from the principal business site and whose hours cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty. The test asks whether the employer supervises attendance, departure, arrival, and performance through inspectors, dispatchers, or scheduled shop days.
Conclusion on Leave Entitlement
Respondent’s routes were monitored by inspectors, dispatchers, and mandatory shop days; his hours and performance were reasonably supervised. He does not qualify as field personnel and therefore is entitled to service incentive leave pay.
Prescriptive Period under Article 291
Money claims must be filed within three years from when the cause of action accrues: the moment the employer breaches its obligation. Each benefit withheld triggers its own accrual date. Amounts accrued beyond three years before filing are barred by prescription.
Unique Nature of Service Incentive Leave Claim
Service incentive leave credits accrue annually and may be used or co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156367)
Facts
- Since 24 May 1995, respondent Antonio Bautista was employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. as a driver-conductor on routes Manila-Tuguegarao via Baguio, Baguio-Tuguegarao via Manila, and Manila-Tabuk via Baguio.
- His compensation was purely commission-based: seven percent (7%) of total gross income per trip, paid twice monthly.
- On 03 January 2000, while driving Autobus No. 114 in Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, respondent’s bus lightly bumped the rear of Autobus No. 124, which had stopped suddenly at a sharp curve without warning.
- Respondent claimed he was compelled to resume service after nearly twenty-four hours without sleep and that management forced him to shoulder thirty percent (30%) of repair costs (P75,551.50) before returning to work.
- Management refused his pleas for reconsideration and, after one month, terminated his employment by letter.
Procedural History
- 02 February 2000: Bautista filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims, asserting entitlement to 13th-month pay and service incentive leave pay.
- Labor Arbiter (29 September 2000): Dismissed illegal dismissal claim; awarded 13th-month pay (P78,117.87) and service incentive leave pay (P13,788.05).
- NLRC (28 September 2001): Modified Arbiter’s decision by deleting 13th-month pay award, relying on P.D. No. 851’s exclusion of purely commission-based employees; affirmed service incentive leave award.
- NLRC Resolution (31 October 2001): Denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals (06 May 2002): Dismissed petitioner’s appeal; affirmed NLRC decision in toto.
- Supreme Court: Elevated petition