This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is well-established in jurisprudence that the determination of whether or not a commission forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or conditions for its payment. In Phil Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC,[21] the Court held that commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary. The salesmen's commissions, comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the goods sold by each salesman, were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes of computing the 13th month pay. The salesmen's commissions are not overtime payments, nor profit-sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit, but a portion of the salary structure which represents an automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna,[22] the so-called commissions paid to or received by medical representatives were excluded from the term basic salary because these were paid to the medical representatives and rank-and-file employees as productivity bonuses, which were generally tied to the productivity, or capacity for revenue production, of a corporation and such bonuses closely resemble profit-sharing payments and had no clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done by each individual employee. | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners insist that the respondents' commissions were not part of their salaries, because they failed to present proof that they earned the commission due to actual market transactions attributable to them. They submit that the commissions are profit-sharing payments which do not form part of their salaries. We are not convinced. If these commissions had been really profit-sharing bonuses to the respondents, they should have received the same amounts, yet, as the NLRC itself noted, Ybarola and Rivera received P372,173.11 and P586,998.50 commissions, respectively, in 2002.[15] The variance in amounts the respondents received as commissions supports the CA's finding that the salary structure of the respondents was such that they only received a minimal amount as guaranteed wage; a greater part of their income was derived from the commissions they get from soliciting advertisements; these advertisements are the "products" they sell. As the CA aptly noted, this kind of salary structure does not detract from the character of the commissions being part of the salary or wage paid to the employees for services rendered to the company, as the Court held in Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC.[16] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that the commissions form part of the basic salary, citing the case of Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[11] wherein the Court held that commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary.[12] | |||||