|
FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL
SUPPLY, INC. and/or ALEXANDER UY, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 162813 Present: |
|
- versus - |
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
JIMMY LEBATIQUE and THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. |
Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is a petition
for review on certiorari assailing the Decision[1]
dated
Petitioner Far East
Agricultural Supply, Inc. (Far East) hired on March 4, 1996 private respondent Jimmy
Lebatique as truck driver with a daily wage of P223.50. He delivered animal feeds to the company’s
clients.
On
On
On
WHEREFORE, we find the termination of complainant
illegal. He should thus be ordered
reinstated with full backwages. He is
likewise ordered paid his 13th month pay, service incentive leave
pay and overtime pay as computed by the Computation and Examination Unit as
follows:
a) Backwages:
P 223.50 x 26 x 9.23 = P 53,635.53
P 250.00 x 26 x 7.86 =
51,090.00 P
104,725.53
13th Month Pay: 1/12 of P 104,725.53 = 8,727.13
Service Incentive Leave Pay
P
223.50 x 5/12 x 9.23 = P 859.54
11/01/00 – 06/26/01 = 7.86 mos.
P 250.00 x 5/12 x 7.86 = [818.75] 1,678.29 115,130.95
b) Overtime
Pay: (3 hours/day)
03/20/97 – 4/30/97 = 1.36
mos.
P 180/8 x 1.25 x 3 x 26 x 1.36 = P
2,983.50
05/01/97 – 02/05/98 = 9.16 mos.
P 185/8 x 1.25 x 3 x 26 x 9.16 = 20,652.94
02/06/98 – 10/30/99 = 20.83 mos.
P 198/8 x 1.25 x 3 x 26 x [20.83] = 50,265.39
P
223.50/8 x 1.25 x 3 x 26 x 2.80 = 7,626.94 81,528.77
TOTAL
AWARD P 196,659.72
SO
ORDERED.[5]
On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The NLRC held that there was no dismissal to
speak of since Lebatique was merely suspended. Further, it found that Lebatique
was a field personnel, hence, not entitled to overtime
pay and service incentive leave pay. Lebatique sought reconsideration but was denied.
Aggrieved, Lebatique filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in reversing the NLRC decision,
reasoned that Lebatique was
suspended on
It reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the NLRC dated
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Hence, the instant petition wherein petitioners assign the following errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS … ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DATED
THE COURT OF APPEALS … ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DATED
THE COURT OF APPEALS … ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FOR FAILURE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO ATTACH CERTIFIED
TRUE COPIES OF THE QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT.[7]
Simply stated, the principal issues in
this case are: (1) whether Lebatique was illegally dismissed;
and (2) whether Lebatique was a
field personnel, not entitled to overtime pay.
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. The drivers may report early in the morning
to make their deliveries or in the afternoon, depending on the production of
animal feeds and the traffic conditions.
Petitioners also aver that Lebatique worked for less than eight
hours a day.[8]
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.
After consideration of the submission of the parties, we
find that the petition lacks merit. We
are in agreement with the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining that of
the Labor Arbiter.
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.[9] 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.[10]
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
company’s 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 Lebatique’s dismissal that it was Lebatique’s 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.[11] 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 management’s unilateral act. What matters is that he filed the complaint
for illegal dismissal on
On the second issue, Article 82 of
the Labor Code is decisive on the question of who are referred to by the term
“field personnel.” It provides, as
follows:
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.
x x x x
“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.
In Auto Bus Transport
Systems, Inc. v. Bautista,[12] 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 employee’s performance is unsupervised by the employer. We
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 employee’s time and performance are constantly
supervised by the employer.[13]
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, 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 client’s premises during truck-ban
hours which is from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.[14] 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.[15] 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. Thus,
he is entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of
Note that 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.[16] Further, if it is established that the benefits being claimed have been withheld from the employee for a period longer than three years, the amount pertaining to the period beyond the three-year prescriptive period is therefore barred by prescription. The amount that can only be demanded by the aggrieved employee shall be limited to the amount of the benefits withheld within three years before the filing of the complaint.[17]
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.[18] 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
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 30, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76196 and its Resolution dated March 15, 2004 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the effect that the case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the exact amount of overtime pay and other monetary benefits due Jimmy Lebatique which herein petitioners should pay without further delay.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-44. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Micro Sales Operation Network v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155279, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 328, 337.
[10]
[11] Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr., G.R. No. 159293, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 298, 305.
[12] G.R. No. 156367,
[13]
[14] Rollo, p. 42.
[15]
[16] Article 291 of the Labor Code.
[17] Supra note 12, at 591.
[18] See Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, supra at 594.