Title
Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 110068
Decision Date
Nov 11, 1993
A dispute over whether sales commissions should be included in 13th month pay computation under labor laws, resolved in favor of employees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12300)

Applicable Law

The pertinent legal framework includes Presidential Decree No. 851, which mandates the payment of 13th-month pay to employees, and subsequent issuances, including Memorandum Order No. 28 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino, amending the previous requirements. These laws set forth the terms for defining "basic salary" and determine how the 13th-month pay should be computed. Particularly, the computation involves both the fixed salary and sales commissions as outlined in the Explanatory Bulletin No. 86-12.

Background of the Dispute

The issue arose when the Philippine Duplicators Employees Union-TUPAS demanded that their salesmen receive 13th-month pay based on their total earnings, which include both their fixed salary and commissions. However, the petitioner refused to comply and insisted that commissions should not be included in the computation. Following this, the union filed a complaint, leading to a decision by the Labor Arbiter that supported the union's stance.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On 24 October 1989, the Labor Arbiter determined that the salesmen were entitled to 13th-month pay based on the entirety of their earnings. This decision was challenged by the petitioner before the NLRC, leading to further scrutiny of whether sales commissions should be included in the "basic salary" for the purposes of the 13th-month pay.

NLRC's Ruling

On 17 November 1992, the NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision, stating that it did not possess the authority to question the validity of the Explanatory Bulletin No. 86-12, whose provisions remained effective unless overturned by a competent authority. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this legal challenge.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Explanatory Bulletin and the subsequent opinion rendered by the Bureau of Working Conditions should be deemed invalid because they extended the definition of "basic salary" beyond what was stipulated in P.D. No. 851. They contended that only the fixed or guaranteed wage should be recognized in the computation of the 13th-month pay. The petitioner also referenced conflicting guidelines that omitted commissions from the definition of basic salary.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court asserted that the sales commissions earned by salesmen constituted part of their "wage" or "salary" as defined in the Labor Code. It emphasized that wages are compensation for services rendered and that the bulk of the remuneration for salesmen consisted of commissions. Consequently, commissions should not be categorized as fringe benefits but as integral components of the salary.

Adherence to Legal Definitions

The Court reinforced that the term "basic salary" included fixed wages and commissions, contrary to the petitioner’s interpretation that limited the definition to fixed wages alone. It distinguished "basic salary" from "fringe benefits," confir

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.