This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Article 291 covers claims for overtime pay,[43] holiday pay,[44] service incentive leave pay,[45] bonuses,[46] salary differentials,[47] and illegal deductions by an employer.[48] It also covers money claims arising from seafarer contracts.[49] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasis that under P.D. 851 or the SIL Law, the exclusion from its coverage of workers who are paid on a purely commission basis is only with respect to field personnel. The more recent case of Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc., v. Bautista[8] clarifies that an employee who is paid on purely commission basis is entitled to SIL: A careful perusal of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. According to the Implementing Rules, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as "field personnel." The phrase "other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer" must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be granted. Rather, it serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 291 of the Labor Code, all money claims arising from employer-employee relations shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall forever be barred. It is settled jurisprudence that a cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.[37] | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista,[12] this Court emphasized that the definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer. We held that field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Thus, in order to determine whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the employee's time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer.[13] | |||||