Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Ruling:
2. Whether or not, related to the award of holiday pay, the divisor should be
changed from 251 to 261 days and whether or not the previous use of 251 as
divisor resulted in overpayment for overtime
The use of 251 days divisor by Filipro indicates that holiday pay is not yet included
in the employees salary, otherwise the divisor should have been 261.
It must be stressed that the daily rate, assuming there are no intervening salary
increases, is a constant figure for the purpose of computing overtime and night
differential pay and commutation of sick and vacation leave credits. Necessarily,
the daily rate should also be the same for computing the 10 unpaid holidays.
The respondent Arbitrators order to change the divisor from 251 to 261 days would
result in a lower daily rate which is violative of the prohibition or non-diminution of
benefits found in Article 100 of the Labor Code. To maintain the same daily rate if
the divisor is adjusted to 261 days, then the dividend, which represents the
employees annual salary, should correspondingly be increased too incorporate the
holiday pay.
Moreover, the reckoning period for the application of the holiday award is October
23, 1984.
Citing Union of Pilipro Employees (UFE) v. Vicar, which sought to explain the
meaning of "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined
with reasonable certainty", the Court said that, in deciding whether or not
an employee's actual working hours in the field can be determined with
reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not such
employee's time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer.
Here, the nature of the work necessarily means that the fishing crew stays
on board the vessel in the course of the fishing voyage. Although they
perform non-agricultural work away from petitioner's business offices, the
fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the
effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel's patron or
master as the NLRC correctly held.
The Court also ruled that there was constructive dismissal of Agao. Medical
certificate shows his fitness to work when he presented the same to his
employer. Beside, as already established in jurisprudence, to constitute
abandonment of position, there must be concurrence of the intention to
abandon and some overt acts from which it may be inferred that the
employee concerned has no more interest in working. Here, the filing
of the complaint which asked for reinstatement plus backwages renders
inconsistent the respondents defense of abandonment.
reinstatement and the payment of his full back wages, 13th month pay, service
incentive leave pay, and overtime pay. The NLRCreversed. The CA reversed again,
reinstating the decision of the LA.
Petitioners contend that, (1) Lebatique was not dismissed from service but merely
suspended for a day due to violation of company rules; (2) Lebatique was not barred
from entering the company premises since he never reported back to work; and (3)
Lebatique is estopped from claiming that he was illegally dismissed since his
complaint before the DOLE was only on the nonpayment of his overtime pay.
Also, petitioners maintain that Lebatique, as a driver, is not entitled to overtime pay
since he is a field personnel whose time outside the company premises cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty. According to petitioners, the drivers do not
observe regular working hours unlike the other office employees.
Lebatique for his part insists that he was illegally dismissed and was not merely
suspended. He argues that he neither refused to work nor abandoned his job. He
further contends that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal. He also claims that he is not a field personnel, thus,
he is entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.
Issues:
- Whether or not Lebatique was illegally dismissed
- Whether or not Lebatique was a field personnel, not entitled to overtime pay
Held:
(1) Illegally Dismissed
It is well settled that in cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is on the employer to
prove that the termination was for a valid cause. In this case, petitioners failed to
discharge such burden. Petitioners aver that Lebatique was merely suspended for
one day but he abandoned his work thereafter. To constitute abandonment as a just
cause for dismissal, there must be: (a) absence without justifiable reason; and (b) a
clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee
relationship.
The records show that petitioners failed to prove that Lebatique abandoned his job.
Nor was there a showing of a clear intention on the part of Lebatique to sever the
employer-employee relationship. When Lebatique was verbally told by Alexander
Uy, the companys General Manager, to look for another job, Lebatique was in effect
dismissed. Even assuming earlier he was merely suspended for illegal use of
company vehicle, the records do not show that he was afforded the opportunity to
explain his side. It is clear also from the sequence of the events leading to
Lebatiques dismissal that it was Lebatiques complaint for nonpayment of his
overtime pay that provoked the management to dismiss him, on the erroneous
premise that a truck driver is a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay.
An employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot by any stretch of
imagination be said to have abandoned his work and the filing of the complaint is
proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of
abandonment. A contrary notion would not only be illogical but also absurd.
It is immaterial that Lebatique had filed a complaint for nonpayment of overtime
pay the day he was suspended by managements unilateral act. What matters is
that he filed the complaint for illegal dismissal on March 20, 2000, after he was told
not to report for work, and his filing was well within the prescriptive period allowed
under the law.
(2) Not a field personnel, hence, entitled to overtime pay
Art. 82 defines what a field personnel is. 1 In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v.
Bautista, this Court emphasized that the definition of a "field personnel" is not
merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his
duties but also with the fact that the employees performance is unsupervised by
the employer. It was held that field personnel are those who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Thus, in
order to determine whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to
ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable
certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or
not the employees time and performance are constantly supervised by the
employer.
As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, Lebatique is not a field personnel as
defined above for the following reasons: (1) company drivers, including Lebatique,
1 ART. 82. Coverage. - The provisions of this title [Working Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to employees
in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial
employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support,
domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as determined by
the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.
xxxx
"Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the
principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty.
are directed to deliver the goods at a specified time and place; (2) they are not
given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective clients; and (3) Far
East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the clients premises
during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Even
petitioners admit that the drivers can report early in the morning, to make their
deliveries, or in the afternoon, depending on the production of animal
feeds. Drivers, like Lebatique, are under the control and supervision of management
officers. Lebatique, therefore, is a regular employee whose tasks are usually
necessary and desirable to the usual trade and business of the company.
All money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed
within three years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall
be forever barred. Lebatique timely filed his claim for service incentive leave pay,
considering that in this situation, the prescriptive period commences at the time he
was terminated. On the other hand, his claim regarding nonpayment of overtime
pay since he was hired in March 1996 is a different matter. In the case of overtime
pay, he can only demand for the overtime pay withheld for the period within three
years preceding the filing of the complaint on March 20, 2000. However the time
records presented were insufficient to properly compute his overtime pay.
10. G.R. No. 130693
March 4, 2004
ISSUE
WON Mindanao is exempt from paying the ECOLA in light of the CBA entered into by
the parties.
HELD
NO.
Pertinent is Section 3, Article VII of the CBA which provides: It is hereby agreed that
these salary increases shall be exclusive of any wage increase that may be
provided by law as a result of any economic change.
The above provision is clear that the salary increases, such as the P20.00 provided
under the CBA, shall not include any wage increase that may be provided by law as
a result of any economic change. Hence, aside from the P20.00 CBA wage increase,
Minsteels members are also entitled to the ECOLA under the Interim Wage Order.
In Mactan Workers Union vs. Aboitiz, it was held that the terms and conditions
of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties.
Those who are entitled to its benefits can invoke its provisions. In the event
that an obligation therein imposed is not fulfilled, the aggrieved party has the right
to go to court for redress.
Finally, the P20.00 daily wage increase granted by Mindanao to its employees under
the CBA cannot be considered as creditable benefit or compliance with the
Interim Wage Order because such was intended as a CBA or negotiated wage
increase and not because of, or in anticipation of the fuel price hikes on
December 5, 1990 x x x.
Dispositive Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 30, 1997 and
Resolution dated August 22, 1997 rendered by the CA in are AFFIRMED.