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 led by
petitioner seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the
reglementary period on August 11, 2017 within which to le 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 nd no compelling reason to depart from the uniform ndings 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 nding of the NLRC and a rmed by the CA that petitioner
is a eld personnel. Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, a eld personnel is de ned as
"non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal
place of business or branch o ce of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the eld cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." Petitioner insists that he is
not a eld worker as his hours of work can be determined with reasonable certainty,
claiming that 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and location. However, the de nition of a " eld 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 eld 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 eld 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. 2018 cdasiaonline.com