Toyota Pasig, Inc., v. Vila S.

De Peralta
G.R. No. 213488
Nov. 7, 2016 | Topic: Wages and Wage Rationalization Act
FACTS:

● The case began when a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, unpaid commission, annual
profit sharing and damages was filed by Respondent against Petitioner and Severino and Jnlyn Lim,
Jason Ian Yap, Jorge Tuason, Marissa Operaña and Arturo Lopez (Lim et. al.) before the NLRC.
Petitioner prays the payment of her substantial commissions, tax rebates and other benefits dating
back from July 2011, to Jan. 2012 amounting to ₱617,248.08

o The complaint alleges that Petitioner – a corporation engaged in the business of car
dealership, including service and sales of parts and accessories hired Respondent as a
cashier in March 1997, she worked her way up the ranks of the said corporation to the
position of Insurance Sales Executive where she received distinctions from Petitioner.

● However, Respondent’s relationship with Petitioner turned sour when Respondent’s husband,
Romulo De Peralta, an employee of petitioner and President of Toyota Shaw-Pasig’s Workers
Union organized a collective bargaining unit through a certification election was suddenly
dismissed from the service by Petitioner with the other officials and directors of the Workers
Union.

o Despite of the dismissal of Respondent’s Husband, Respondent alleges that she is

repeatedly harassed by Petitioner due to her husband’s active involvement in the union
which resulted to the issuance of a Notice to Explain accusing her of committing various
acts relative to the processing of insurance of 3 units as outside transactions and
claiming commissions for it. She was preventively suspended and was eventually
terminated a month after prompting her to file the said complaint.

Petitioner’s Arguments

● Petitioner in their defense states that Respondent was dismissed for just cause and with due
process. They explained that respondent was charged and proven to have committed acts of
dishonesty and falsification by claiming commissions for new business accounts which should
have been duly credited to the dealership.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

● The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. However, Petitioner is ordered to pay
Respondent ₱11,111.50 representing Respondent’s salary for Jan. 2012

o According to the LA, Respondent admitted through her letter of explanation that she
processed the insurance of units which constituted dishonesty, which is tantamount to
serious misconduct, a just cause for dismissal.

o The LA also found that there was no basis to grant the unpaid commissions as the
document submitted in support were mere computations which are not proof of
Respondent’s entitlement.
NLRC Ruling

● The NLRC affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that Petitioner is liable to
Respondent in the amount of ₱617,248.08 representing respondent’s unpaid commissions, tax
rebate, salary deductions, and her salary for January, and profit sharing.

CA Ruling

● The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling stating that the NLRC did
not abuse its discretion.
ISSUE(S):

● Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the NLARC ruling which upheld petitioner’s liability to
respondent in the amount of 617,248.08

FALLO:

● Petition is Denied, Resolutions of the CA are affirmed in toto by the Supreme Court.

RULING:

● The Court cites Sec 97 [f] of the Labor Code which provides the definition of wage with an
emphasis that: wage is the renumeration of earnings, however, designated, capable of being
expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission
basis.

● According to the Court, citing Iran v. NLRC, the inclusion of commissions as part of wages are
included because while they are included to inspire employees to put a little more industry on
their jobs, commissions are still direct renumerations for services rendered because the nature
of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered
demonstrate clearly that commissions are part of a salesman’s wage or salary because
commissions are calculated as a percentage on the amount of the salesman’s transactions or
the profit of the principal.

● IN this case, Respondent’s monetary claims such as commissions, rebates for achieved monthly
targets, and profit sharing are given to her as incentives in order to put extra effort in performing
her duties for her position.

o Thus, the claim falls within the ambit of the general term of commissions which fall
within the definition of wages pursuant to the prevailing law and jurisprudence.

● Other than this, the SC ruled that an allegation of nonpayment of monetary benefits places the
burden on the employer, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that it paid the benefit
and that the employee actually received such payment or that the employee was not entitled to
such payment.

o In this case, Petitioner failed to address respondent’s claim by dismissing it as self-

serving and unfounded without presenting any proof contrary to respondent’s claim.
Petitioner was given a chance to submit records to rebut respondent’s claims but failed
to do so.