Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel

Vs.
National Labor Relations Commission (First Division, Labor Arbiter
Flavio Aguas, and F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc.
G. R. No. L-50999 March 23, 1990

FACTS:
F.E. Zuellig (M), Inc., the respondent filed an application
seeking clearance to terminate the services of the petitioners, Jose
Sonco, Romeo Cipnes, and Amancio Manuel on the ground of retrenchment
due to financial loses. Notwithstanding, this application was opposed
by the petitioners alleging that the company is not suffering
financial loses, they disputed that the reason of their dismissal is
their membership in the Union.
During their last hearing, the petitioners manifested that they
are no longer contenting their dismissal. Both parties agreed that
the sole issue to be resolved was the basis of separation of pay for
for the petitioners where each of them will receive a monthly salary
of P40,000 including the commission for the sale they made.
Under the the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered by
Zuellig and petitioners, in the Article XIV it was mentioned here
that any employee shall receive a retirement gratuity in an amount
equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service. The
petitioner’s basis for contention are the Art. 284 of the Labor Code
regards with the reduction of personnel, and Section 9(b) and 10 Rule
1, Book IV of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
The Labor Arbiter ordered Zuellig to pay the complainants the
separation pay equivalent to their one month salary. For every year
of service they have incurred including the sales commissions and
allowances. Thus, the appeal of petitioner to NLRC was denied due to
lack of merit. In the present petition, petitioner Romeo filed a
Notice of Voluntary Abandonment and Withdrawal of Petition by the
reason receiving his own separation pay. The dismissal was resolved
as to him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the earned sale commission and allowances should
be included in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of
their separation pay.

HELD:
Yes. The Court alleged that the petitioners’ contention regarding
with their separation pay, whether under the Labor Code or the CBA,
sales commissions and allowances should be added to their separation
pay. This issue has also been settled in the case of Santos vs.
NLRC. Furthermore, in defining the term commission, it was obviously
stated the nature of the work of a salesman sales commission should
be included in the separation pay. Hence, the petition is hereby
granted.

PRINCIPLE:
Labor Legislation and Labor Contracts shall be construed in favor
of the safety and decent of the laborer. In interpreting the
provision of the Labor Code and the implementing of its regulations,
the employee’s welfare should be primordial and paramount
consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and
substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as
provided in Art. 4 of the Labor Code which states that “all doubts in
the implementation and interpretation of the provision of the Labor
Code including its implementing rules and regulation shall be
resolved in favor of labor.”