G.R. No.

156367
AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. vs ANTONIO BAUTISTA
16 May 2005

Facts:

Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was assigned to the Isabela-Manila route and he was paid by
commission (7% of gross income per travel for twice a month).

January 2000 - while driving his bus he bumped another bus owned by Auto Bus. He claimed it was accidental becayse he was so tired and had not
slept for more than 24 hours because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela immediately after arriving at Manila. Damages were computed and
30% or P75,551.50 of it was being charged to Bautista. Bautista refused payment.

Auto Bus terminated Bautista after due hearing as part of Auto Bus’ management prerogative. Bautista sued Auto Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter Monroe Tabingan dismissed Bautista’s petition but ruled that Bautista is entitled to P78,1117.87 13th month pay payments and
P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive leave pay.

The case was appealed before the NLRC. NLRC modified the LA’s ruling. It deleted the award for 13th Month pay. The CA affirmed the NLRC.

Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned employee and he is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a service incentive leave.
They invoke:

Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

(a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days
with pay.

Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

SECTION 1.Coverage. ' This rule shall apply to all employees except:

(d)Field personneland 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; . . .

ISSUE:

Is Bautista is a field personnel?

HELD & RATIONALE:

No, he is not. Hence, he is entitled to the service incentive leave.

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.

As a general rule, field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by the employer or his representative, the
workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they are
paid specific amount for rendering specific service or performing specific work. If required to be at specific places at specific times, employees
including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing work away from the principal office of the employee.

Certainly, Bautista is not a field employee. He has a specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that is a specific place that he needs to be at work.
There are inspectors hired by Auto Bus to constantly check him. There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the passengers, the punched
tickets, and the driver. Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away from the Auto Bus main office.
uto Bus Transport vs Bautista DIGEST
DECEMBER 20, 2016 ~ VBDIAZ

Auto Bus Transport vs Bautista

G.R. No. 156367. May 16, 2005
Facts:
Bautista, a driver-conductor of the Autobus transport, was dismissed after his
failure to pay an amount demanded by the company for the repair of the bus
damaged in an accident caused by him.
He receives compensation by way of commission per travel.
Bautista complained for illegal dismissal with money claims for nonpayment of
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus.
Auto Bus’ Defenses:
1. Bautista’s employment was replete with offenses involving reckless
imprudence, gross negligence, and dishonesty supported with copies of
letters, memos, irregularity reports, warrants of arrest;
2. In the exercise of management prerogative, Bautista was terminated only
after providing for an opportunity to explain:
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint however awarded Bautista his
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.
Auto Bus appealed. NLRC deleted the 13th month pay award. In the CA, NLRC’s
decision was affirmed.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave pay.
Held: Yes.
Under Article 95 of the Labor Code, every employee who has rendered at least
one year or service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five
days with pay. In Section 1, Rule V, Book III of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Labor Code, the rule shall apply to all, 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 in a fixed amount for performing work
irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof.
Petitioner’s contention that Bautista is not entitled to service incentive leave
because he is paid on a purely commission basis must fail. The phrase
following “Field personnel” should not be construed as a separate classification
of employees but is merely an amplification of the definition of field personnel
defined under the Labor Code.
Bautista neither falls under the category field personnel. As defined, field
personnel are those whose performance of service is unsupervised by the
employer, the workplace being away from the principal place of business and
whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Bus companies have ways of determining the hours worked by their drivers
and conductors with reasonable certainty. The courts have taken judicial notice
of the following:
1. Along the routes traveled, there are inspectors assigned at strategic
places who board the bus to inspect the passengers, the punched tickets,
and the conductor’s reports;
2. There is a mandatory once-a week car barn or shop day, where the bus is
regularly checked;
3. The drivers and conductors must be at specified place and time, as they
observe prompt departure and arrival;
4. At every depot, there is always a dispatcher whose function is to see to it
that the bus and crew leaves and arrives at the estimated proper time.
By these reasons, drivers and conductors are therefore under constant
supervision while in the performance of their work.