Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 156367 May 16, 2005
AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
ANTONIO BAUTISTA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
efore !s is a Petition for Revie" on Certiorari assailin# the Decision
$
and Resolution
%

of the Court of &ppeals affir'in# the Decision
(
of the National )abor Relations
Co''ission *N)RC+. ,he N)RC rulin# 'odified the Decision of the )abor &rbiter
*findin# respondent entitled to the a"ard of $(
th
'onth pa- and service incentive leave
pa-+ b- deletin# the a"ard of $(
th
'onth pa- to respondent.
THE !ACTS
Since %. Ma- $//0, respondent &ntonio autista has been e'plo-ed b- petitioner &uto
us ,ransport S-ste's, Inc. *&utobus+, as driver1conductor "ith travel routes Manila1
,u#ue#arao via a#uio, a#uio1 ,u#ue#arao via Manila and Manila1,abu2 via a#uio.
Respondent "as paid on co''ission basis, seven percent *34+ of the total #ross
inco'e per travel, on a t"ice a 'onth basis.
On 5( 6anuar- %555, "hile respondent "as drivin# &utobus No. $$. alon# Sta. 7e,
Nueva Vi8ca-a, the bus he "as drivin# accidentall- bu'ped the rear portion of &utobus
No. $%., as the latter vehicle suddenl- stopped at a sharp curve "ithout #ivin# an-
"arnin#.
Respondent averred that the accident happened because he "as co'pelled b- the
'ana#e'ent to #o bac2 to Ro9as, Isabela, althou#h he had not slept for al'ost t"ent-1
four *%.+ hours, as he had :ust arrived in Manila fro' Ro9as, Isabela. Respondent
further alle#ed that he "as not allo"ed to "or2 until he full- paid the a'ount of
P30,00$.05, representin# thirt- percent *(54+ of the cost of repair of the da'a#ed
buses and that despite respondent;s pleas for reconsideration, the sa'e "as i#nored b-
'ana#e'ent. &fter a 'onth, 'ana#e'ent sent hi' a letter of ter'ination.
,hus, on 5% 7ebruar- %555, respondent instituted a Co'plaint for Ille#al Dis'issal "ith
Mone- Clai's for nonpa-'ent of $(
th
'onth pa- and service incentive leave pa-
a#ainst &utobus.
Petitioner, on the other hand, 'aintained that respondent;s e'plo-'ent "as replete
"ith offenses involvin# rec2less i'prudence, #ross ne#li#ence, and dishonest-. ,o
support its clai', petitioner presented copies of letters, 'e'os, irre#ularit- reports, and
"arrants of arrest pertainin# to several incidents "herein respondent "as involved.
7urther'ore, petitioner avers that in the e9ercise of its 'ana#e'ent prero#ative,
respondent;s e'plo-'ent "as ter'inated onl- after the latter "as provided "ith an
opportunit- to e9plain his side re#ardin# the accident on 5( 6anuar- %555.
On %/ Septe'ber %555, based on the pleadin#s and supportin# evidence presented b-
the parties, )abor &rbiter Monroe C. ,abin#an pro'ul#ated a Decision,
.
the dispositive
portion of "hich reads<
=>ERE7ORE, all pre'ises considered, it is hereb- found that the co'plaint for Ille#al
Dis'issal has no le# to stand on. It is hereb- ordered DISMISSED, as it is hereb-
DISMISSED.
>o"ever, still based on the above1discussed pre'ises, the respondent 'ust pa- to the
co'plainant the follo"in#<
a. his $(
th
'onth pa- fro' the date of his hirin# to the date of his dis'issal, presentl-
co'puted at P3?,$$3.?3@
b. his service incentive leave pa- for all the -ears he had been in service "ith the
respondent, presentl- co'puted at P$(,3??.50.
&ll other clai's of both co'plainant and respondent are hereb- dis'issed for lac2 of
'erit.
0
Not satisfied "ith the decision of the )abor &rbiter, petitioner appealed the decision to
the N)RC "hich rendered its decision on %? Septe'ber %55$, the decretal portion of
"hich reads<
1
A,Bhe Rules and Re#ulations I'ple'entin# Presidential Decree No. ?0$, particularl-
Sec. ( provides<
CSection (. E'plo-ers covered. D ,he Decree shall appl- to all e'plo-ers e9cept to<
999 999 999
e+ e'plo-ers of those "ho are paid on purel- co''ission, boundar-, or tas2 basis,
perfor'in# a specific "or2, irrespective of the ti'e consu'ed in the perfor'ance
thereof. 999.C
Records sho" that co'plainant, in his position paper, ad'itted that he "as paid on a
co''ission basis.
In vie" of the fore#oin#, "e dee' it :ust and eEuitable to 'odif- the assailed Decision
b- deletin# the a"ard of $(
th
'onth pa- to the co'plainant.
F
=>ERE7ORE, the Decision dated %/ Septe'ber %555 is MODI7IED b- deletin# the
a"ard of $(
th
'onth pa-. ,he other findin#s are &77IRMED.
G
In other "ords, the a"ard of service incentive leave pa- "as 'aintained. Petitioner thus
sou#ht a reconsideration of this aspect, "hich "as subseEuentl- denied in a Resolution
b- the N)RC dated ($ October %55$.
Displeased "ith onl- the partial #rant of its appeal to the N)RC, petitioner sou#ht the
revie" of said decision "ith the Court of &ppeals "hich "as subseEuentl- denied b- the
appellate court in a Decision dated 5G Ma- %55%, the dispositive portion of "hich reads<
=>ERE7ORE, pre'ises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED for lac2 of 'erit@ and
the assailed Decision of respondent Co''ission in N)RC NCR C& No. 5%G0?.1%555 is
hereb- &77IRMED in toto. No costs.
3
>ence, the instant petition.
ISSUES
$. =hether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave@
%. =hether or not the three *(+1-ear prescriptive period provided under &rticle %/$ of the
)abor Code, as a'ended, is applicable to respondent;s clai' of service incentive leave
pa-.
RU"ING O! THE COURT
,he disposition of the first issue revolves around the proper interpretation of &rticle /0 of
the )abor Code vis--vis Section $*D+, Rule V, oo2 III of the I'ple'entin# Rules and
Re#ulations of the )abor Code "hich provides<
Art. 95. RIH>, ,O SERVICE INCEN,IVE )E&VE
*a+ Ever- e'plo-ee "ho has rendered at least one -ear of service shall be entitled to a
-earl- service incentive leave of five da-s "ith pa-.
Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE
SECTION 1. Covera#e. D ,his rule shall appl- to all e'plo-ees e9cept<
F
*d+ 7ield personnel and other e'plo-ees "hose perfor'ance is unsupervised b- the
e'plo-er includin# those "ho are en#a#ed on tas2 or contract basis, purel-
co''ission basis, or those "ho are paid in a fi9ed a'ount for perfor'in# "or2
irrespective of the ti'e consu'ed in the perfor'ance thereof@ . . .
& careful perusal of said provisions of la" "ill result in the conclusion that the #rant of
service incentive leave has been deli'ited b- the I'ple'entin# Rules and Re#ulations
of the )abor Code to appl- onl- to those e'plo-ees not e9plicitl- e9cluded b- Section $
of Rule V. &ccordin# to the I'ple'entin# Rules, Service Incentive )eave shall not appl-
to e'plo-ees classified as Cfield personnel.C ,he phrase Cother e'plo-ees "hose
perfor'ance is unsupervised b- the e'plo-erC 'ust not be understood as a separate
classification of e'plo-ees to "hich service incentive leave shall not be #ranted.
Rather, it serves as an a'plification of the interpretation of the definition of field
personnel under the )abor Code as those C"hose actual hours of "or2 in the field
cannot be deter'ined "ith reasonable certaint-.C
?
,he sa'e is true "ith respect to the phrase Cthose who are engaged on task or contract
basis, purely commission basis." Said phrase should be related "ith Cfield personnel,C
appl-in# the rule on ejusdem generis that #eneral and unli'ited ter's are restrained
and li'ited b- the particular ter's that the- follo".
/
>ence, e'plo-ees en#a#ed on tas2
2
or contract basis or paid on purel- co''ission basis are not auto'aticall- e9e'pted
fro' the #rant of service incentive leave, unless, the- fall under the classification of field
personnel.
,herefore, petitioner;s contention that respondent is not entitled to the #rant of service
incentive leave :ust because he "as paid on purel- co''ission basis is 'isplaced.
=hat 'ust be ascertained in order to resolve the issue of propriet- of the #rant of
service incentive leave to respondent is "hether or not he is a field personnel.
&ccordin# to &rticle ?% of the )abor Code, Cfield personnelC shall refer to non1a#ricultural
e'plo-ees "ho re#ularl- perfor' their duties a"a- fro' the principal place of business
or branch office of the e'plo-er and "hose actual hours of "or2 in the field cannot be
deter'ined "ith reasonable certaint-. ,his definition is further elaborated in the ureau
o! "orking Conditions #"C$, %dvisory &pinion to Philippine 'echnical-Clerical
Commercial (mployees %ssociation
$5
"hich states that<
&s a #eneral rule, Afield personnelB are those "hose perfor'ance of their :obIservice is
not supervised b- the e'plo-er or his representative, the "or2place bein# a"a- fro'
the principal office and "hose hours and da-s of "or2 cannot be deter'ined "ith
reasonable certaint-@ hence, the- are paid specific a'ount for renderin# specific service
or perfor'in# specific "or2. )! re*uired to be at speci!ic places at speci!ic times,
employees including drivers cannot be said to be !ield personnel despite the !act that
they are per!orming work away !rom the principal o!!ice o! the employee. AE'phasis
oursB
,o this discussion b- the =C, the petitioner differs and postulates that under said
advisor- opinion, no e'plo-ee "ould ever be considered a field personnel because
ever- e'plo-er, in one "a- or another, e9ercises control over his e'plo-ees. Petitioner
further ar#ues that the onl- criterion that should be considered is the nature of "or2 of
the e'plo-ee in that, if the e'plo-ee;s :ob reEuires that he "or2s a"a- fro' the
principal office li2e that of a 'essen#er or a bus driver, then he is inevitabl- a field
personnel.
=e are not persuaded. &t this point, it is necessar- to stress that the definition of a Cfield
personnelC is not 'erel- concerned "ith the location "here the e'plo-ee re#ularl-
perfor's his duties but also "ith the fact that the e'plo-ee;s perfor'ance is
unsupervised b- the e'plo-er. &s discussed above, field personnel are those "ho
re#ularl- perfor' their duties a"a- fro' the principal place of business of the e'plo-er
and whose actual hours o! work in the !ield cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty. ,hus, in order to conclude "hether an e'plo-ee is a field e'plo-ee, it is also
necessar- to ascertain if actual hours of "or2 in the field can be deter'ined "ith
reasonable certaint- b- the e'plo-er. In so doin#, an inEuir- 'ust be 'ade as to
"hether or not the e'plo-ee;s ti'e and perfor'ance are constantl- supervised b- the
e'plo-er.
&s observed b- the )abor &rbiter and concurred in b- the Court of &ppeals<
It is of :udicial notice that alon# the routes that are plied b- these bus co'panies, there
are its inspectors assi#ned at strate#ic places "ho board the bus and inspect the
passen#ers, the punched tic2ets, and the conductor;s reports. ,here is also the
'andator- once1a1"ee2 car barn or shop da-, "here the bus is re#ularl- chec2ed as to
its 'echanical, electrical, and h-draulic aspects, "hether or not there are proble's
thereon as reported b- the driver andIor conductor. ,he- too, 'ust be at specific place
as AsicB specified ti'e, as the- #enerall- observe pro'pt departure and arrival fro' their
point of ori#in to their point of destination. In each and ever- depot, there is al"a-s the
Dispatcher "hose function is precisel- to see to it that the bus and its cre" leave the
pre'ises at specific ti'es and arrive at the esti'ated proper ti'e. ,hese, are present in
the case at bar. ,he driver, the co'plainant herein, "as therefore under constant
supervision "hile in the perfor'ance of this "or2. >e cannot be considered a field
personnel.
$$
=e a#ree in the above disEuisition. ,herefore, as correctl- concluded b- the appellate
court, respondent is not a field personnel but a re#ular e'plo-ee "ho perfor's tas2s
usuall- necessar- and desirable to the usual trade of petitioner;s business. &ccordin#l-,
respondent is entitled to the #rant of service incentive leave.
,he Euestion no" that 'ust be addressed is up to "hat a'ount of service incentive
leave pa- respondent is entitled to.
,he response to this Euer- inevitabl- leads us to the correlative issue of "hether or not
the three *(+1-ear prescriptive period under &rticle %/$ of the )abor Code is applicable
to respondent;s clai' of service incentive leave pa-.
&rticle %/$ of the )abor Code states that all 'one- clai's arisin# fro' e'plo-er1
e'plo-ee relationship shall be filed "ithin three *(+ -ears fro' the ti'e the cause of
action accrued@ other"ise, the- shall be forever barred.
In the application of this section of the )abor Code, the pivotal Euestion to be ans"ered
is "hen does the cause of action for 'one- clai's accrue in order to deter'ine the
rec2onin# date of the three1-ear prescriptive period.
It is settled :urisprudence that a cause of action has three ele'ents, to "it, *$+ a ri#ht in
favor of the plaintiff b- "hatever 'eans and under "hatever la" it arises or is created@
*%+ an obli#ation on the part of the na'ed defendant to respect or not to violate such
3
ri#ht@ and *(+ an act or o'ission on the part of such defendant violative of the ri#ht of
the plaintiff or constitutin# a breach of the obli#ation of the defendant to the plaintiff.
$%
,o properl- construe &rticle %/$ of the )abor Code, it is essential to ascertain the ti'e
"hen the third ele'ent of a cause of action transpired. Stated differentl-, in the
co'putation of the three1-ear prescriptive period, a deter'ination 'ust be 'ade as to
the period "hen the act constitutin# a violation of the "or2ers; ri#ht to the benefits bein#
clai'ed "as co''itted. 7or if the cause of action accrued 'ore than three *(+ -ears
before the filin# of the 'one- clai', said cause of action has alread- prescribed in
accordance "ith &rticle %/$.
$(
ConseEuentl-, in cases of nonpa-'ent of allo"ances and other 'onetar- benefits, if it
is established that the benefits bein# clai'ed have been "ithheld fro' the e'plo-ee for
a period lon#er than three *(+ -ears, the a'ount pertainin# to the period be-ond the
three1-ear prescriptive period is therefore barred b- prescription. ,he a'ount that can
onl- be de'anded b- the a##rieved e'plo-ee shall be li'ited to the a'ount of the
benefits "ithheld "ithin three *(+ -ears before the filin# of the co'plaint.
$.
It is essential at this point, ho"ever, to reco#ni8e that the service incentive leave is a
curious ani'al in relation to other benefits #ranted b- the la" to ever- e'plo-ee. In the
case of service incentive leave, the e'plo-ee 'a- choose to either use his leave
credits or co''ute it to its 'onetar- eEuivalent if not e9hausted at the end of the -ear.
$0
7urther'ore, if the e'plo-ee entitled to service incentive leave does not use or
co''ute the sa'e, he is entitled upon his resi#nation or separation fro' "or2 to the
co''utation of his accrued service incentive leave. &s enunciated b- the Court in
+ernande, v. -./C<
$G
,he clear polic- of the )abor Code is to #rant service incentive leave pa- to "or2ers in
all establish'ents, sub:ect to a fe" e9ceptions. Section %, Rule V, oo2 III of the
I'ple'entin# Rules and Re#ulations provides that CAeBver- e'plo-ee "ho has rendered
at least one -ear of service shall be entitled to a -earl- service incentive leave of five
da-s "ith pa-.C Service incentive leave is a ri#ht "hich accrues to ever- e'plo-ee "ho
has served C"ithin $% 'onths, "hether continuous or bro2en rec2oned fro' the date
the e'plo-ee started "or2in#, includin# authori8ed absences and paid re#ular holida-s
unless the "or2in# da-s in the establish'ent as a 'atter of practice or polic-, or that
provided in the e'plo-'ent contracts, is less than $% 'onths, in "hich case said period
shall be considered as one -ear.C It is also "commutable to its money e*uivalent i! not
used or e0hausted at the end o! the year." )n other words, an employee who has served
!or one year is entitled to it. 1e may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary
value. ,o li'it the a"ard to three -ears, as the solicitor #eneral reco''ends, is to
undul- restrict such ri#ht.
$3
AItalics suppliedB
Correspondin#l-, it can be conscientiousl- deduced that the cause of action of an
entitled e'plo-ee to clai' his service incentive leave pa- accrues fro' the 'o'ent the
e'plo-er refuses to re'unerate its 'onetar- eEuivalent if the e'plo-ee did not 'a2e
use of said leave credits but instead chose to avail of its co''utation. &ccordin#l-, if
the e'plo-ee "ishes to accu'ulate his leave credits and opts for its co''utation upon
his resi#nation or separation fro' e'plo-'ent, his cause of action to clai' the "hole
a'ount of his accu'ulated service incentive leave shall arise "hen the e'plo-er fails to
pa- such a'ount at the ti'e of his resi#nation or separation fro' e'plo-'ent.
&ppl-in# &rticle %/$ of the )abor Code in li#ht of this peculiarit- of the service incentive
leave, "e can conclude that the three *(+1-ear prescriptive period co''ences, not at
the end of the -ear "hen the e'plo-ee beco'es entitled to the co''utation of his
service incentive leave, but fro' the ti'e "hen the e'plo-er refuses to pa- its
'onetar- eEuivalent after de'and of co''utation or upon ter'ination of the
e'plo-ee;s services, as the case 'a- be.
,he above construal of &rt. %/$, vis--vis the rules on service incentive leave, is in
2eepin# "ith the rudi'entar- principle that in the i'ple'entation and interpretation of
the provisions of the )abor Code and its i'ple'entin# re#ulations, the "or2in#'an;s
"elfare should be the pri'ordial and para'ount consideration.
$?
,he polic- is to e9tend
the applicabilit- of the decree to a #reater nu'ber of e'plo-ees "ho can avail of the
benefits under the la", "hich is in consonance "ith the avo"ed polic- of the State to
#ive 'a9i'u' aid and protection to labor.
$/
In the case at bar, respondent had not 'ade use of his service incentive leave nor
de'anded for its co''utation until his e'plo-'ent "as ter'inated b- petitioner.
Neither did petitioner co'pensate his accu'ulated service incentive leave pa- at the
ti'e of his dis'issal. It "as onl- upon his filin# of a co'plaint for ille#al dis'issal, one
'onth fro' the ti'e of his dis'issal, that respondent de'anded fro' his for'er
e'plo-er co''utation of his accu'ulated leave credits. >is cause of action to clai'
the pa-'ent of his accu'ulated service incentive leave thus accrued fro' the ti'e
"hen his e'plo-er dis'issed hi' and failed to pa- his accu'ulated leave credits.
,herefore, the prescriptive period "ith respect to his clai' for service incentive leave
pa- onl- co''enced fro' the ti'e the e'plo-er failed to co'pensate his accu'ulated
service incentive leave pa- at the ti'e of his dis'issal. Since respondent had filed his
'one- clai' after onl- one 'onth fro' the ti'e of his dis'issal, necessaril-, his 'one-
clai' "as filed "ithin the prescriptive period provided for b- &rticle %/$ of the )abor
Code.
#HERE!ORE, pre'ises considered, the instant petition is hereb- DENIED. ,he
assailed Decision of the Court of &ppeals in C&1H.R. SP. No. G?(/0 is hereb-
&77IRMED. No Costs. SO OR$ERE$.
4