This case has been cited 4 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. | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As earlier said, the delegated authority must be properly exercised. This simply means that the resulting IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It is basic that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress,[32] for administrative IRRs are solely intended to carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.[33] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Private respondent counters that petitioner knew that the overriding commission is not included in the basic salary because it had not been considered as such for a long time in the computation of the 13th month pay, leave commissions, absences and tardiness. Petitioner himself stated in the complaint that his basic salary is P10,919.22, thus, he is estopped from claiming otherwise. Moreover, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna,[13] the Supreme Court held that the fixed or guaranteed wage is patently "the basic salary" for this is what the employee receives for a standard work period, and that commissions are given for extra efforts exerted in consummating sales or other transactions. Also, in Soriano v. National Labor Relations Commission,[14] the Court clarified that overriding commission is not properly includible in the basic salary as it must be earned by actual market transactions attributable to the claimant. Thus, as a unit manager who supervised the salesmen under his control and did not enter into actual sale transactions, petitioner's overriding commissions must not be considered in the computation of the retirement benefits and 13th month pay.[15] | |||||
|
2005-05-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Assuming argumenti that E.O. No. 73 has authorized the petitioner to issue the objected Regulations, such conferment of powers is void for being repugnant to the well-encrusted doctrine in political law that the power of taxation is generally vested with the legislature.[17] Yes, President Corazon Aquino, at that time, was exercising both executive and legislative powers. But, the power delegated to the executive branch, in this case the Ministry of Finance, to lay down implementing rules must, nevertheless, be germane to the general law it seeks to apply. The implementing rules cannot add to or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement.[18] Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law they are intended to carry into effect,[19] which in this case is merely to antedate the effectivity of the 1984 Real Property Tax values inasmuch as this is the raison d'être of E.O. No. 73. | |||||