Auto 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:

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;

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:

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;

There is a mandatory once-a week car barn or shop day, where the bus is regularly checked;

The drivers and conductors must be at specified place and time, as they observe prompt
departure and arrival;

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.

The Supreme Court concluded that respondent is not a field personnel but a regular
employee who performs tasks usually necessary desirable to the usual trade of petitioner’s
business, respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave. (art. 291, LC)

The petition is denied and the decision of court of Appeals is affirmed.