Bernardo vs NLRC [G.R. No.

122917 July 12, 1999]

FACTS:

Complainants are deaf-mutes who were hired by Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and
Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called “Employment Contract for Handicapped
Workers.” Their employments were renewed every 6 months.

Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, Far East Bank and Trust Company
maintained that complainants who are a special class of workers were hired temporarily under a
special employment arrangement which was a result of overture made by some civic and political
personalities to the respondent Bank.

The LA and NLRC ruled against herein petitioners. Respondent Commission ratiocinated that Art.
280 is not controlling in this case. As complainants were hired as an accommodation to the
recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employment were covered by Employment
Contracts with special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80, the terms of the
contract shall be the law between the parties.

The NLRC also declared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable,
“considering the prevailing circumstances/milieu of the cases.”

ISSUE:

Is the provision of the RA 7277 on proscription against discrimination against disabled persons
applicable in this case

RULING:

The renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others leads to the
conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts
show that they were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their
disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them.

In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee
should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person.

The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the employment
contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified
able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code.

The noble objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity or
accommodation, but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. In the
present case, the handicap of petitioners (deaf-mutes) is not a hindrance to their work. The eloquent
proof of this statement is the repeated renewal of their employment contracts. The Court believes,
that, after showing their fitness for the work assigned to them, they should be treated and granted the
same rights like any other regular employees
Union of Filipino Employees vs Vivar G.R. No. 79255 January 20, 1992

Facts:

This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel from the holiday pay award and the
change of the divisor in the computation of benefits from 251 to 261days. On November 8, 1985,
respondent Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and
obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay in the light of the Court's
decision in Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople (138 SCRA 273 1985).

Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for
voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar, Jr. as voluntary arbitrator. Filipro filed
a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award to three
years, (2) the exclusion of salesmen, sales representatives, truck drivers,merchandisers and medical
representatives (hereinafter referred to as salespersonnel) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3)
deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime, night differential, vacation and
sick leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. (Rollo, pp. 138-145)Petitioner UFE answered that
the award should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, that their sales
personnel are not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and that the use of 251 as
divisor is an established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.

Issue:

WON the respondent's sales personnel are not field personnel under Article 82 of the Labor Code?

Held:

The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding salesvolume based on sales t
arget; (2) good collection performance; (3) propercompliance with good market hygiene; (4) good
merchandising work; (5) minimal market returns; and (6) proper truck maintenance. (Rollo, p.
190). The Court thereby resolves that the grant of holiday pay be effective, not from the date of
promulgation of the Chartered Bank case nor from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, but from
October 23, 1984, the date of promulgation of the IBAA case.

WHEREFORE, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby MODIFIED. The divisor to be used in
computing holiday pay shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be computed from
October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby AFFIRMED
Hilario Dasco, et al. Vs. Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc., G.R. No. 211141. June 29, 2016.

FACTS:

This is a complaint for regularization, underpayment of wages, non-payment of service incentive

leave (SIL) pay, and attorney's fees, filed by the petitioners against Philtranco Service Enterprises
Inc., (PSEI), a domestic corporation engaged in providing public utility transportation, and its
Manager, Centurion Solano. From 2006 to 2010, the petitioners were employed by the respondents
as bus drivers and/or conductors. On July 4, 2011, the petitioners filed a case against the
respondents alleging that: ( 1) they were already qualified for regular employment status since they
have been working with the respondents for several years; (2) they were paid only P404.00 per
round trip, which lasts from two to five days, without overtime pay and below the minimum wage rate;
(3) they cannot be considered as field personnel because their working hours are controlled by the
respondents from dispatching to end point and their travel time is monitored and measured by the
distance because they are in the business of servicing passengers where time is of the essence; and
( 4) they had not been given their yearly five-day SIL since the time they were hired by the
respondents. In response, the respondents asserted that: ( 1) the petitioners were paid on a fixed
salary rate of P0.49 centavos per kilometer run, or minimum wage, whichever is higher; (2) the
petitioners are seasonal employees since their contracts are for a fixed period and their employment
was dependent on the exigency of the extraordinary public demand for more buses during peak
months of the year; and (3) the petitioners are not entitled to overtime pay and SIL pay because they
are field personnel whose time outside the company premises cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty since they ply provincial routes and are left alone in the field unsupervised.

ISSUE:

Are the petitioners as bus drivers and/or conductors field personnels and thus, entitled to overtime
and SIL pay?

RULING:

No, the petitioners are not field personnels but are rather regular employees who are entitled to
overtime and SIL pay. The petitioners are not field personnel because as bus drivers and/or
conductors, they are directed to transport their passengers at a specified time and place; they are not
given the discretion to select and contract with prospective passengers; their actual work hours could
be determined with reasonable certainty, as well as their average trips per month; and the
respondents supervised their time and performance of duties. the petitioners, as bus drivers and/or
conductors, are left alone in the field with the duty to comply with the conditions of the respondents'
franchise, as well as to take proper care and custody of the bus they are using. Since the
respondents are engaged in the public utility business, the petitioners, as bus drivers and/or
conductors, should be considered as regular employees of the respondents because they perform
tasks which are directly and necessarily connected with the respondents' business. Thus, they are
consequently entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of the respondents, including
overtime pay and SIL pay.
David vs Macasio [G.R. No. 195466, July 02, 2014]

FACTS:

 Macasio filed before the LA a complaint against petitioner for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday
pay and 13thmonth pay. He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees, and payment for service incentive leave (SIL).

 Macasio alleged that he had been working as a butcher for David since January 6, 1995.That David
exercised effective control and supervision over his work, pointing out that David:

(1) set the work day, reporting time and hogs to be chopped, as well as the manner by which he was
to perform his work;
(2) daily paid his salary of P700.00, which was increased from P600.00 in 2007, P500.00 in 2006
and P400.00 in 2005; and (3) approved and disapproved his leaves.

  Macasio added that David owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work
tools and implements; the latter also rented the workplace.
  David’s defense:

He claimed that he hired Macasio as a butcher or chopper on "pakyaw" or task basis who is,
therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th month pay pursuant to the provisions of
the IRR of the Labor Code.

LABOR ARBITER:

The LA dismissed respondent’s claims for lack of merit and gave credence to David’s claim that he
engaged Macasio on "pakyaw" or task basis. The LA noted the following facts to support this finding:

(1) Macasio received the fixed amount of P700.00 for every work done, regardless of the number
ofhours that he spent in completing the task and of the volume or number of hogs that he had to
chop per engagement;

(2) Macasio usually worked for only four hours, beginning from 10:00 p.m. up to 2:00 a.m. of the
following day; and

(3) the P700.00 fixed wage far exceeds the then prevailing daily minimum wage of P382.00. The LA
added that the nature of David’s business as hog dealer supports this "pakyaw" or task basis
arrangement concluded that as Macasio was engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, he is not entitled to
overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

The LA concluded that as Macasio was engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis, he is not

entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.

NLRC

Affirmed the LA ruling.

CA
The CA reversed the NLRC’s ruling for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion and
awarded Macasio’s claim for holiday, SIL and 13th month pay for three years, with 10% attorney’s
fees on the total monetary award. The CA, however, denied Macasio’s claim for moral and
exemplary damages for lack of basis.

ISSUE:

1. Whether respondent Macasia is a Field personnel

2. Whether respondent Macasio is entitled to 13th month pay

RULING

1. NO

Based on the definition of field personnel under Article 82, we agree with the CA that Macasio does
not fall under the definition of "field personnel." The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the
established facts of this case: first, Macasio regularly performed his duties at David’s principal place
of business; second, his actual hours of work could be determined with reasonable certainty; and,
third, David supervised his time and performance of duties.

Since Macasio cannot be considered a "field personnel," then he is not exempted from the grant of
holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis.

2. NO

That the CA erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in denying this benefit to
Macasio. The governing law on 13th month pay is PD No. 851.5313th month pay benefits generally
cover all employees; an employee must be one of those expressly enumerated to be exempted.

Section 3 of the IRR of P.D. No. 851 enumerates the exemptions from the coverage of 13th month
pay benefits. Under Section 3(e), "employers of those who are paid on xxx task basis, and those who
are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the
performance thereof" are exempted.

Note that unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the IRR of PD No.
851 exempts employees" paid on task basis" without any reference to "field personnel." This could
only mean that insofar as payment of the 13thmonth pay is concerned, the law did not intend to
qualify the exemption from its coverage with the requirement that the task worker be a "field
personnel" at the same time
Makati Haberdashery vs NLRC [G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989]

Facts:

This is a petition assailing the decision of NLRC affirming the decision of Labor Arbiter finding
Haberda guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering him to reinstate the dismissed workers and in
concluding that there is employer-employee relationship between workers and Haberda.

The complainants were working for Haberda as tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters and
plantsadoras. Paid on a piece-rate basis with allowance when they report for work before 9:30am
everyday.(MON-SAT)

July 1984, the labor organization where the complainants are members filed a complaint for
underpayment of basic wage, living allowance, non-payment of overtime work, non-payment of
holiday pay, non-payment of service incentive pay and other benefits under wage orders.

During the pendency, Haberda dismiss the workers for the alleged job acceptance from another,
which was denied by the workers and countered by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. Which was
granted by NLRC. Hence, this petition raising the issues on:

Issues:
(1) employer-employee relationship?
(2) workers entitled to monetary claims?
(3) were respondents illegally dismissed?

Ruling:

(1) There is employer-employee relationship. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most
important requisite of control is present. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner, when a
customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor, the latter directs an employee
who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements,
and to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer. Supervision is actively manifested in
all these aspects — the manner and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.

(2) Because the workers were proven to be regular employees, they shall be entitled to minimum
wages. Plus the respondents didn't appealed when the Labor Arbiter granted the minimum wage
award to the workers in the first place. But workers are not entitled to incentive pay and other
benefits because piece-rate workers are paid at fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the
time consumed.

(3) There was no illegal dismissal to the two workers accused of the copied Barong Tagalog design,
because when they were asked to explain to their employer, the workers did not but instead go
AWOL. Imposing disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just and valid cause is within the rights
of the employer.
q