G.R. No.

211141

Dasco vs. PHILTRANCO

June 29, 2016

Facts:

The case centres on a petitioner's complaint made against Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc.
(PSEI), a domestic company that provides transportation for public utilities. From 2006 to 2010, the
petitioners worked as bus drivers and conductors. They then filed a lawsuit against the respondents,
claiming they were already eligible for regular employment status, were only paid P404.00 roundtrip,
could not be considered field personnel because the respondents controlled their working hours, and
had not received their yearly five-day SIL since being hired.

The defendants maintained that because the petitioners were seasonal workers and received a
set income of P0.49 centavos per kilometre ran, they were not eligible for overtime pay or SIL
compensation. Although the petitioners were deemed regular workers, the LA decided in favour of the
respondents. The National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC) changed the ruling after the petitioners
submitted a partial appeal, claiming that they are not field staff and are therefore entitled to overtime
benefits, minimum wage, and SIL pay.

The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated
May 30, 2012. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed
and set aside the NLRC rulings, declaring the writ of execution, levy, auction sale, and certificate of sale
of PSEI's properties null and void. The CA considered the petitioners as field workers and denied their
claim for benefits, such as overtime pay and SIL pay.

Issues:

Whether the petitioners, who work as bus drivers and/or conductors, are deserving of SIL and
overtime compensation.

Ruling:

YES. The Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that they are not
considered field personnel as defined by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor
Relations Administration (LA). The court emphasized that the determination of whether bus drivers and
conductors are considered field personnel was already established in the case of Auto Bus Transport
Systems, Inc. v. Bautista. The NLRC concluded that the petitioners were regular employees who
performed tasks necessary and desirable to the respondents' business.

The court found that the petitioners were not field personnel as defined above, as they were
directed to transport passengers at a specified time and place, had no discretion to select and contract
with prospective passengers, had actual work hours determined with reasonable certainty, and were
supervised by the respondents. The court also observed that the petitioners were under strict
supervision and control of the bus companies while performing their duties.

The court agreed with the findings of the NLRC, stating that the petitioners were left alone in the
field with the duty to comply with the conditions of the respondents' franchise and take proper care and
custody of the bus they were using. As the respondents are engaged in the public utility business, the
petitioners should be considered regular employees of the respondents, as they perform tasks directly
and necessarily connected with their business. They are therefore entitled to the benefits accorded to
regular employees of the respondents, including overtime pay and SIL pay.