FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232949. November 20, 2017.]

JOSE V. HISOLER III , petitioner, vs. FILIPINO TRAVEL CENTER

CORPORATION/JOHAN HENK VAN WEERDEN, A.K.A. HANS
VAN WEERDEN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows: SDAaTC

"G.R. No. 232949 — Jose V. Hisoler III v. Filipino Travel Center

Corporation/Johan Henk Van Weerden, a.k.a. Hans Van Weerden
The Court hereby resolved to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time
filed by petitioner seeking an additional period of 30 days from the
expiration of the reglementary period on August 11, 2017 within which to file
his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the May 17, 2017 Decision and
July 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No.
147604, the Court further resolved to DENY the Petition for failure to show
that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed
Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's
discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
We find no compelling reason to depart from the uniform findings of
the Labor Arbiter (LA), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and
the CA that petitioner was validly dismissed. As long as their decision is
supported by facts and the evidence, the matter of evaluating the merits and
demerits of the case is left to their sound discretion. 1 Petitioner, indeed,
committed a serious misconduct and violation of company rules when he
allowed other persons to ride with paying customers which compromised
their safety. An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is
guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer. The dismissal of
petitioner who is guilty of such a serious infraction is, therefore, reasonable.
We also agree with the finding of the NLRC and affirmed by the CA that
petitioner is a field personnel. Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, a field
personnel is defined as "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." Petitioner insists that he is not a field worker as
his hours of work can be determined with reasonable certainty, claiming that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 with the advent of modern technology such as the global positioning system
(GPS) and cellular phone, his work hours and performance as driver were
effectively monitored by his employer.
We are not persuaded. Certainly, with the help of petitioner's cellular
phone and the company vehicle's GPS, respondents can monitor the
progress of petitioner's trip and location. However, the definition of a "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. 2 As correctly observed by the
NLRC, petitioner's activity remains unsupervised as he was even able to let
unauthorized persons join the tour without the knowledge of respondents.
The CA observed that the hours spent to the actual field work were left to
the control of petitioner. Obviously, petitioner is not under constant
supervision of the company while in the performance of his work.
Consequently, being a field personnel, petitioner is not entitled to overtime
pay, holiday pay, rest day premium and service incentive leave pay. 3
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed May 17,
2017 Decision and July 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.
SP No. 147604.
The Court of Appeals is DROPPED as public respondent in this case
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations

Commission , 327 Phil. 838, 848 (1996).
2. Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, 497 Phil. 863, 874 (2005).

3. See Section 2 of Rule I, Section 7 of Rule III, Section 1 (e) of Rule IV and Section
1 (d) of Rule V, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com