CONDICIÓN, PLAZO Y LUGAR DE ENTREGA DE LOS BIENES

The term “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. Thus, in order to conclude 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.

FACTS:

Respondent Antonio Bautista was employed with petitioner Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. since May 24, 1995 as a driver-conductor of the latter’s bus. Bautista was paid on commission basis per travel on a twice a month basis. On January 3, 2000, the bus driven by Bautista accidentally bumped another bus owned by the respondent. As a result, Auto Bus did not allow Bautista to work until he paid the cost of the repair of the damaged bus. Bautista failed to pay and after given the opportunity to explain his side, Auto Bus sent him a letter for termination. Bautista then instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay (SILP) against Auto Bus.

ISSUE: Whether or not Antonio Bautista is considered a field personnel thus determinative of his service

incentive leave pay entitlement.

LA RULING: Labor Arbiter Tabingan decided on the case in favor of Auto Bus, dimissing the Complaint of

Bautista. However, the LA ordered Auto Bus to pay Bautista his 13th month pay from the date of his hiring to the date of his dismissal and his SILP for all the years he has been in service for the former.

NLRC RULING: The NLRC affirmed with modification the LA’s decision. It held that Bautista, being an

employee paid on commission basis, was not entitled for 13th month pay in accordance with Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD No. 851, leaving Bautista with a claim for his SILP.

The NLRC also denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in which petitioner denied their liability to pay Bautista of his SILP contending that that Bautista, being a “field personnel”, was an exception to the rule that employees are entitled to SILP. As a legal basis, petitioner cited Section 1(d), Rule V, Book 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code which delimits the grant of the SIL, excluding among others “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 in a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof”.

CA RULING: The CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision. SC RULING:

The Court held no. According to Article 82 of the Labor Code, “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. The term “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. Thus, in order to conclude 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.

41. ARIEL L. DAVID, doing business under the name and style "YIELS HOG DEALER vs. JOHN G. MACASIO

G.R. No. 195466 July 2, 2014 BRION, J.:

Doctrine:

Engagement in a “pakyaw” or task basis does not negate the existence of employer-employee relationship.

FACTS:

Macasio filed a complaint against David, doing business under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer,” for non- payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and SIL plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Macasio alleged that he has been working as a butcher for David. Macasio claimed that David exercised control and supervision over his work because 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;

3. Approved and disapproved his leaves; and

4. Owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work tools and implements and also rented the workplace.

On the other hand, David claimed that he hired Macasio on “pakyaw” or task basis thus he is not entitled to the benefits claimed. David pointed out that Macasio’s work starts at 10:00pm-2:00am depending on the volume of hogs delivered. Macasio was paid a fixed amount regardless of the number of hogs chopped but was not engaged to work, and accordingly not paid, when no hogs are delivered.

To support his claims, Macasio presented the Certificate of Employment (COE) issued to him by David and likewise faulted David for not presenting as evidence the DTR’s and payrolls which could have easily established Macasio’s claims. David, however, insists that Macasio was not his employee, as he was engaged in a “pakyaw” or task basis and that the COE was issued only for overseas employment purposes.

LA RULING: The LA dimissed the complaint banking on the argument of David that Macasio was merely

engaged in a “pakyaw” or task basis. Accordingly, Macasio is not entitled to the monetary awards.

NLRC RULING: Affirmed LA ruling. It ruled that Macasio was not covered by the Labor Standards on the

awards claimed because he was paid by results.

CA RULING: The CA modified the NLRC ruling. While agreeing that Macasio was paid by results, this did not

preclude the award of the benefits sought by Macasio. The CA ruled that he will only be excluded from the

coverage of the holiday, SIL, 13th month pay only if he is a field personnel, which are lacking in Macasio’s case.

On appeal to the SC, David alleges, among others, engagement on a “pakyaw” or task basis precludes the creation of employer-employee relationship.

ISSUE: Whether engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis negates the existence of employer-employee

relationship between them the parties involved.

SC RULING:

No. Engagement in “pakyaw” or task basis does not characterize the relationship between the parties whether

employment or independent contractorship. It only determines the manner of calculation of the wages due to the employee which, is in this case, is the quantity or quality of work done.

Moreover, employing the control test, employer-employee relationship exists in this case as shown by the following circumstances:

1. David engaged the services of Macasio; 2. David paid Macasio’s wages;

3. David had been setting the day and time when Macasio should report for work; 4. David rents the place where Macasio had been performing his tasks;

6. David would still engage Macasio’s services and have him report for work even during the days when only few hogs were delivered for butchering.

The totality of the surrounding circumstances of the present case sufficiently points to an employer- employee relationship existing between David and Macasio.

42. BEGINO V. ABS-CBN

G.R. No. 199166 April 20, 2015 PEREZ, J.:

Doctrine:

Exclusivity Clause and Prohibitions in talent contracts are indicative of control by the employer if it does not concern well-known television and radio personality who can legitimately be considered as talent and compensated as such.

FACTS:

ABS-CBN employed Begino and Del Valle sometime in 1996 as Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting. Sumayao Avila-Llorin were similarly engaged as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002, respectively. [hereinafter referred to as petitioners] Petitioner were engaged through Talent Contracts which, though regularly renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three (3) months to one (1) year. Petitioners were given Project Assignment Forms which detailed, among other matters, the duration of a particular project as well as the budget and the daily technical requirements thereof. In the aforesaid capacities, petitioners were tasked with coverage of news items for subsequent daily airings in respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program.

The Talent Contract specified the absence of employer-employee relationship between the parties and mandated compliance with the professional standards of ABS-CBN and its policies and guidelines as well as the rules of KBP. It also prohibited the petitioners from engaging in similar work for persons or entities in direct or indirect competition with ABS-CBN. Petitioners’ compensation were termed as Talent Fee’s and were results oriented in nature, thus petitioners were not required to observe normal working hours.

Claiming that they were regular employees, petitioners filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the NLRC S- RAB Naga City. Petitioners claimed that they performed functions necessary and desirable in ABS-CBN's business. Petitioners averred that they worked under the direct control and supervision of Villafuerte, ABS- CBN’s manager, because they were mandated to wear company IDs and the latter provided all the equipment they needed, and, at the end of each day, were informed about the news to be covered the following day, the routes they were to take and, whenever the subject of their news coverage is quite distant, even the start of their workday. Moreover, noncompliance with the company policies will merit dismissal. Petitioners were constantly evaluated and were subjected to annual competency assessment alongside other ABS-CBN employees. As a result of their denomination as talents, they merely earned an average of P7,000.00 to P8,000.00 per month, or decidedly lower than the P21,773.00 monthly salary ABS-CBN paid its regular rank-and-file employees.

ABS-CBN contends that, due to the lack of manpower to produce its own programs, it is necessary to hire independent contractors who offered their services in relation to a particular program. Due to the unpredictability of viewer preferences, their payment usually depends on the budget allocation for a project.

It argued that its control is limited to the imposition of general guidelines on conduct and performance, simply for the purpose of upholding the standards of the company and the strictures of the industry. There is no control or restrictions over the means and methods by which they performed or discharged the tasks for which their services were engaged. Petitioners were, at most, briefed whenever necessary regarding the general requirements of the project to be executed.

LA RULING: The LA ruled that petitioners were regular employees having rendered services necessary and

related to ABS-CBN’s business for more than a year. It ruled that the exclusivity and prohibitions in the contract showed ABS-CBN’s control over petitioners.

NLRC RULING: The NLRC affirmed LA decision.

CA RULING: The CA discounted the existence of an employer-employee relation between the parties upon the

following findings and conclusions: (a) petitioners, were engaged by respondents as talents for periods, work and the program specified in the Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms concluded between them; (b) petitioners were paid talent fees depending on the budget allocated for the program to which they were assigned; (c) being respondents did not exercise control over the manner and method by which petitioner

the industry; and, (d) the existence of an employer-employee relationship is not necessarily established by the exclusivity clause and prohibitions which are but terms and conditions on which the parties are allowed to freely stipulate.

ISSUE: Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and ABS-CBN. SC RULING:

Yes. Notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms and the

terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN because they perform functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business. Respondents’ repeated hiring of petitioners for its long-running news program positively indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN’s regular employees.

Petitioners were subject to the control and supervision of respondents which, first and foremost, provided them with the equipments essential for the discharge of their functions. The talent contracts specifically provide that ABS-CBN shall retain “all creative, administrative, financial and legal control” of the programs which were assigned to petitioners. They were likewise required “to attend and participate in all promotional or merchandising campaigns, activities or events for the Program,” and to perform their functions “at such locations and Performance/Exhibition Schedules.” Such terms demonstrate the control over petitioners not only over the results but also over the means employed to achieve the same.

While it is true that in Sonza, where similar exclusivity clause and restrictions were held not to be indicative of control and lead to the conclusion that Sonza was an independent contractor, such cannot be applied in this case. The said case enunciated that guidelines for the achievement of mutually desired results are not tantamount to control. It cannot not be applied in this case because Sonza case involved a well-known television and radio personality who was legitimately considered a talent and amply compensated as such. While possessed of skills for which they were modestly recompensed by respondents, petitioners lay no claim to fame and/or unique talents for which talents like actors and personalities are hired and generally compensated in the broadcast industry.

ARTICLE 95