G.R. No. 162813; February 12, 2007; FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC.

and/or ALEXANDER
UY, Petitioners, vs.JIMMY LEBATIQUE and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.QUISUMBING, J .:
DOCTRINE: Field Personnel- 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.

FACTS:
March 1996: Lebatique was hired as a driver by FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. (FEASI) with a daily
wage of P223.50. (Job: deliver animal feeds to the clients of the company.) He must report either in the morning or in
the afternoon to make the deliveries. January 24, 2000: Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy (brother of FEASIs
General Manager Alexander Uy) for allegedly using the company vehicle illegally.

On the same day, Lebatique filed a complaint for nonpayment of overtime pay against Alexander Uy. Uy summoned
Lebatique and asked why he was claiming overtime pay. Lebatique: I was never given overtime pay since I started
working for you. Uy consulted with his brother. On January 29, 2000, Uy told Lebatique to look for another job.
Lebatique then filed an Illegal Dismissal case against the company.

LA: Lebatique won. Uy was ordered to reinstate Lebatique and at the same time to pay Lebatique his 13
th
month pay,
back wages (time when case was pending), service incentive leave pay and OT pay all amounting to P196,659.72.
NLRC:

Uy: argued that Lebatique was not dismissed and that he was merely suspended; that he abandoned his job; and that
Lebatique was a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave.

NLRC: sided with Uy. CA: Reversed NLRC. (Lebatique was suspended on January 24, 2000 but was illegally
dismissed on January 29, 2000 when Alexander told him to look for another job. It also found that Lebatique was not a
field personnel and therefore entitled to payment of overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay.)

ISSUE/ HELD: WON Lebatique is a field personnel- NO. Lebatique is a regular employee.

RATIO:
Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for another job. He was not even given a chance to explain
his side (according to the records)! Judging at the sequence of events, Lebatique earned the ire of Uy when he filed a
complaint for nonpayment of OT pay on the day Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is not a valid reason
for dismissing Lebatique. Uy cannot therefore claim that he merely suspended Lebatique.

Further, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is proof enough that he had no intention to abandon
his job. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be:
(a) absence without justifiable reason; and
(b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.
None of the above was proven by Uy.

Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the goods at a specified time and place;
(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective clients; and
(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the clients premises during truck-ban hours which
is from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to service incentive leave and OT pay.

Article 82 of the Labor Code is decisive on the question of who are referred to by the term "field personnel." It
provides, as follows:
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, managerial 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.
x x x x
"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.
In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, 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 employees
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.

WHEREFORE: LA decision is AFFIRMED. Case is REMANDED for the proper computation of Lebatiques OT pay taking in to
consideration the companys time keeping records.