SAN MIGUEL BREWERY UNION VS OPLE

FACTS:

In 1979, SMC implemented its “Complementary Distribution System” (CDS) whereby wholesalers can
directly get beer products from any SMC offices. The SMB Union assailed this program because it violates
the CBA particularly the established scheme whereby route salesmen have been given specific territories
to sell beer products. The CDS scheme would then lower the take home pay of the route salesmen. SMB
Union then sued SMC for unfair labor practices.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CDS is a violation of the CBA

HELD:

No. The SC ruled that the CDS is an exercise of management prerogatives whereby the management can
implement schemes to optimize their profit. Further, the CDS provides for a compensation clause as well
for salesmen. San Miguel Corporation’s offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be
adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying them a so-called “back adjustment
commission” to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves the company’s
good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.

MERCIDAR FISHING CORP vs. NLRC AND AGAO DIGEST

DECEMBER 20, 2016
G.R. No. 112574, October 8, 1998

FACTS:

This case originated from a complaint filed by Agao against petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation of P.D.
No. 851, and non-payment of five days SIL. Private respondent had been employed as a “bodegero” or
ship’s quartermaster. He complained that he had been constructively dismissed by petitioner when the
latter refused him assignments aboard its boats. Private respondent alleged that he had been sick and thus
allowed to go on leave without pay for one month but that when he reported to work at the end of such
period with a health clearance, he was told to come back another time as he could not be reinstated
immediately. Thereafter, petitioner refused to give him work.

Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged that it was private respondent who actually abandoned his work. It
claimed that the latter failed to report for work after his leave had expired and was, in fact, absent without
leave for three months .

Labor Arbiter Amansec rendered a decision ordering respondents to reinstate complainant with
backwages, pay him his 13th month pay and incentive leave pay.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The NLRC dismissed
petitioner’s claim that it cannot be held liable for SIL pay by fishermen in its employ as the latter supposedly
are “field personnel” and thus not entitled to such pay under the Labor Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Agao a field employee, hence not entitled to SIL pay?

HELD:

NO; Agao is NOT a field employee, he is entitled to SIL pay

Art. 82 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 82. Coverage. — The provisions of this Title [Working Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to
employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government
employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support,
domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by results as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.

“Field personnel” shall refer to 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 argues essentially that since the work of private respondent is performed away from its principal
place of business, it has no way of verifying his actual hours of work on the vessel. It contends that private
respondent and other fishermen in its employ should be classified as “field personnel” who have no
statutory right to SIL pay.

In the case of Union of Pilipro Employees (UFE) v. Vicar, this Court explained the meaning of the phrase
“whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty” in Art. 82 of the
Labor Code, as follows:

Moreover, the requirement that “actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty” must be read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules which provides:
Rule IV Holidays with Pay

Sec. 1. Coverage — This rule shall apply to all employees except:

(e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer . . .
(Emphasis supplied).

Petitioner in said case is contending that such rule added another element not found in the law. Contrary to
the contention of the petitioner, the Court finds that the aforementioned rule did not add another element to
the Labor Code definition of field personnel. The clause “whose time and performance is unsupervised by
the employer” did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause “whose actual hours of
work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.” The former clause is still within the scope
and purview of Article 82 which defines field personnel. Hence, in deciding whether or not an employee’s
actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to
whether or not such employee’s time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer

In the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage, fishermen employed by petitioner have
no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from
petitioner’s business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the
effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel’s patron or master as the NLRC correctly
held.

MANUEL LARA VS PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO

GR No. L-6339 April 20,1954

FACTS:

Defendant Petronilo del Rosario, Jr., is the owner of Waval Taxi. He employed among others three
mechanics and 49 chauffeurs or drivers, the latter having worked for periods ranging from 2 to 37 months.
In September 4, 1950, del Rosario sold his 25 cabs to La Mallorca, resulting to the unemployment of the
above-mentioned chauffeurs because La Mallorca failed to continue them in their employment.

They brought this action against del Rosario to recover compensation for overtime work rendered beyond
eight hours and on Sundays and legal holidays, and one month salary (mesada) because of the failure of
their former employer to give them one month notice.

The plaintiffs as chauffeurs received no fixed compensation based on the hours or the period or time they
worked. They were paid in the commission basis, that is, each driver received 20 percent of the gross
return or earnings from the operation of his taxi cab.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to extra compensation for work performed in excess of 8 hours a
day, Sundays and holidays included; and

2. Whether or not there are entitled for a mesada.

HELD:

The defendant being engaged in the taxi or transportation business which is public utility, came under the
exception provided by the Eight-hour labor law; and because plaintiffs did not work on a salary basis, that is
to say, they had no fixed or regular salary or remuneration other than the 20 percent of their gross earnings
their situation was therefore practically similar to piece workers and hence outside the ambit of Article 302
of the Code of Commerce.

Moreover, if the plaintiffs herein had no fixed salary either by the day, week or the month, then computation
of the month;s salary (mesada) payable would be impossible. Article 302 of the Code of Commerce refers
to employees receiving a fixed salary.