Labor Relations Cases| JZ| 1

DAVID v. MACASIO

G.R. No. 1954666 ; July 2, 2014

(SIL, Holiday Pay, 13th Month Pay)

Facts:

Herein respondent is a buthcer employed by petitioner. He was paid Php 700.00 and
which was increased through the years, and that herein petitioner set the work day, reporting
time and the manner of how the hogs are to be chopped. On the other hand petitioner
conteded that herein respondent is not entitled to SIL, Holiday pay and 13th month pay since
he is hired on Pakyaw basis.

It was found however by the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC that herein respondent is
indeed employed in a task basis, thus, not entitled to the said benefits. Upon appeal to the CA,
the said tribunal partially granted the appeal; that even if herein respondent was hired on
“pakyaw” basis applying the Doctrine in Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit which states that
Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay only if he is likewise a "field
personnel. Further field personnel was defined as s one who performs the work away from the office or
place of work and whose regular work hours cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The
petitioner feeling aggrieved elevated such issue to the higher tribunal, hence this petition.

Issue:

WON respnodent is entitled to the said Benefits.

Held:

The Supreme Court held in the affirmative The law so provides that generally all employees are
covered by the Holiday Pay and SIL benefits and exempts field personnel. Uncer the IRR it qualifies and
limits the general exclusion of workers paid by results (since an interpretation of the law is determined
by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations).

In Serrano, the Court, applying the rule on ejusdem generis declared that "employees engaged
on task or contract basis are not automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave,
unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel."51 The Court explained that the phrase
"including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis" found in Section
 Labor Relations Cases| JZ| 2

1(d), Rule V of Book III of the IRR should not be understood as a separate classification of employees to
which SIL shall not be granted. Rather, as with its preceding phrase - "other employees whose
performance is unsupervised by the employer" - the phrase "including those who are engaged on task or
contract basis" serves to amplify the interpretation of the Labor Code definition of "field personnel" as
those "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." Same
goes with the holdiay pay.

However with regards to the 13th month pay, respondent is not entitled since P.D. 851
expressly enumerates thos which are exempted from its coverage which under Sec. 3(e) thereof
"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. This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month 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.

“To note in this case despite it being a question of law, to dwell into the factual antecedents of the case
is neccesary since it is intertwined with the law in question. Thus finding respondent despite being hired
on a pakyaw basis, an employee of herein petitioner (note that the four fold test was applied).”
 Labor Relations Cases| JZ| 3

LOPEZ V. IRVINE CONSTRUCTION CORP.

G.R. No. 207253; August 20, 2014

(Illegal Dismissal)

Facts:

Herein petitioner was hired by herein respondent as a laborer and allegedly doubled as a guard
at the same time with a fixed amount of salary and working hour of 7 am to 4 pm. Subsequent thereof,
petitioner was told that he was to be laid off, since the project that they were doing was finished and
petitioner was later on asked to return to work within 6 months.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC (found out that petitioenr was a regular employee and not a
project employee) ruled that herein petitioner was illegaly dismissed but was overturned by the Court of
Appeals wherein it stated that Lopez's complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed since there
was no indicia that Lopez was actually prevented by Irvine from returning to work or was deprived of
any work assignments or duties. Hence this petition was elevated to the high court.

Issue:

WON employee was a regualr employee or a project employee and that was he illegally
dismissed.

Held: