CASE # 287

MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC., JORGE LEDESMA and CECILIO G. INOCENCIO, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
November 15, 1989
FACTS:
private respondents herein, have been working for petitioner Makati Haberdashery, Inc. as tailors,
seamstress, sewers, basters (manlililip) and "plantsadoras".
They are paid on a piece-rate basis. except for two petitioners,Maria Angeles and Leonila
Serafina who are paid on a monthly basis. In addition to their piece-rate,
They are given a daily allowance of three (P 3.00) pesos provided they report for work before
9:30 a.m. everyday \
On July 20, 1984, the Sandigan ng Manggagawang Pilipino, a labor organization of the
respondent workers, filed a complaint for: (a) underpayment of the basic wage; (b)
underpayment of living allowance; (c) non-payment of overtime work; (d) non-payment of
holiday pay; (e) non-payment of service .
On June 10, 1986, Labor Arbiter rendered judgment i n favor of compl ainants which the
NLRC affirmed but limited back wages to one year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not employees paid on piece-rate basis are entitled to service incentive pay
HELD:
While private respondents are entitled to Minimum Wage, COLA and 13th Month Pay, they are
not entitled to service incentive leave pay because as piece-rate workers being paid at a fixed
amount for performing work irrespective of time consumed in the performance thereof, they fall
under one of the exceptions stated in Section 1(d), Rule V, Implementing Regulations, Book III,
Labor Code. For the same reason private respondents cannot also claim holiday pay (Section
1(e), Rule IV, Implementing Regulations, Book III, Labor Code).

Section 1(d), Rule V, Implementing Regulations, Book III:
Service Incentive Leave : This rule shall apply to all employees except:
(d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer including
those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are paid a fixed
amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof

Section 1(e), Rule IV, Implementing Regulations, Book III, Labor Code

Holidays with Pay : This rule shall apply to all employees except
(e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer
including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are
paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof



CASE # 289

AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs. ANTONIO BAUTISTA, respondent.

Facts:
Respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc.
(Autobus), as driver-conductor with travel routes Manila.
Respondent was paid on commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross income per
travel, on a twice a month basis.
On 03 January 2000, while respondent was driving Autobus No. 114 along Sta. Fe, Nueva
Vizcaya, the bus he was driving accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. 124
A month after the incident, management sent him a letter of termination
respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of
13
th
month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave
Held:
YES. In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his service incentive leave nor
demanded for its commutation until his employment was terminated by petitioner. Neither did
petitioner compensate his accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. It
was only upon his filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, one month from the time of his
dismissal, that respondent demanded from his former employer commutation of his accumulated
leave credits. His cause of action to claim the payment of his accumulated service incentive leave
thus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulated
leave credits.
The Supreme Court observed that the service incentive leave is a curious animal in relation to other
benefits granted by the law to every employee. In the case of service incentive leave, the employee may
choose to either use his leave credits or commute it to its monetary equivalent if not exhausted at the
end of the year. Furthermore, if the employee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or
commute the same, he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of his
accrued service incentive leave.


















CASE # 291
PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUPREME
PACKAGING, INC. and ALVIN LEE, Plant Manager,respondents.

Respondent: Supreme Packaging, Inc., is in the business of manufacturing cartons and other
packaging materials for export and distribution.
Petitioner: Pedro Chavez, engaged as a truck driver to SPI


Facts:

Petitioner Pedro Chavez was hired as truck driver of Private Respondent Supreme Packaging, Inc. for
10 years
Chavez requested to avail himself of the benefits that a regular employees were receiving but his
request was denied
Petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. III of the
NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Before the case could be heard, respondent company
terminated the services of the petitioner.
He later on filed an amended complaint for illegal dismissal

Issue:
Whether or not the manner of payment of wages is significant in establishing an employer-
employee relationship

Held:

NO. Wages are defined as remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable of being
expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission
basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or
for service rendered or to be rendered.. Tha t the petitioner was paid on a per trip basis is not
significant. This is merely a method of computing compensation and not a basis for determining
the existence or absence of employer-employee relationship. One may be paid on the basis of
results or time expended on the work, and may or may not acquire an employment status,
depending on whether the elements of an employer-employee relationship are present or
not.
[14]
In this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner received compensation from the
respondent company for the services that he rendered to the latter.











CASE # 293

AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO), petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division), RODOLFO M.
RETISO and 165 OTHERS,
[1]
respondents.

Complainant Rodolfo M. Retiso and 163 others, Lyn E. Banilla and Wilson B. Sallador
Respondents Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO), Atty. Leovigildo Mationg in his
capacity as General Manager; Manuel Calizo, in his capacity as Acting Board President,
Board of Directors, AKELCO

FACTS:
On January 22, the Board of AKELCO allowed the temporary
transfer holding of office at Kalibo, Aklan

Majority of the employees continued to work at Lezo Aklan and were
paid of their salaries. An unnumbered resolution was passed by
AKELCO withdrawing the temporary designation of office at kalibo,
Aklan and that daily operation be held again at the main office of Lezo,
Aklan.

From June 1992 to March 1993, complainants who reported at Lezo
were not paid their salaries. From March up to the present,
complainants were allowed to draw their salaries, with the exception of
a few who were not paid their salaries for April and May 1993.

The respondents allege that the complainants voluntarily abandoned their
work assignments and that they defied the lawful orders by the General
manager and thus the Board of Directors passed a resolution resisting and
denying the claims of these complainants under the principle of no work, no
pay. NLRC held that private respondents are entitled to unpaid wages from
June 1992 up to march 1993.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are covered by the no work, no
pay principle and thus not entitled to the claim for unpaid wages from June
1992 to March 1993.

HELD: Yes. Petitioner was able to show that the private respondents did not
render services during the stated period. Also, private respondents in their
position paper admitted that they did not report at the Kalibo office, as Lezo
remained to be their office where they continuously reported.The court
found that the letter of the exchange of letters between Leyson (one of the
complainants) and Mationg (the general manager), as well as the
computation used as basis for the request of the unpaid wages are self
serving and that the temporary resolution of AEO should be given credence.
If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage pay
unless the laborer was able willing and ready to work but was ILLEGALLY
locked out, suspended or dismissed. In this case, the company legally
transferred it business to Kalibo without prejudice to its workers. NLRC
decision reversed.