G.R. No. 156367 (Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v.

Antonio Bautista)

DECISION
Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts of the Case:

1. Respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed as a driver-conductor by
petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc., paid on commission basis.
2. January 3, 2000, while respondent was driving the bus, he got into an
accident. He averred that the accident happened because he was compelled
by the management to go back to Isabela, although he had not slept for
almost 24 hours since he arrived in Manila.
3. Also, he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount representing
30% of the cost of repair of the damaged buses.
4. After a month, he was sent a termination letter
5. Respondent instituted a complain for illegal dismissal with money claims for
non-payment of 13 month pay and SIL
6. Petitioner maintained that was replete with offenses involving reckless
imprudence, gross negligence and dishonesty – copies of reports and memos
were presented as evidence
7. Petitioner also contends that in the exercise of management prerogative,
respondent was terminated only after respondent was provided opportunity
to provide for an explanation
8. LA: Dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. However, company must
pay respondent 13th month pay and SIL
9. NLRC: Modified decision of LA stating that respondent is not entitled to 13th
month pay – SIL is maintained

ISSUE: W/N Respondent is entitled to SIL

W/N 3 year prescriptive period is applicable to respondent’s claim of SIL

RULING:

1st ISSUE
1. The grant of SIL ha 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. IT states that 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
2. The same is true to those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely
commission basis. This phrase should be related to field personnel by
application of ejusdem generis
3. What must be ascertained in order to resolve the issue of propriety of the
grant of SIL to respondents is whether or not he is a field personnel
4. Field personnel are not merely concerned ith the location where the
employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the
employee’s performance is unsupervised by the employer.
5. As correctly concluded by the appellate court, respondent is not a field
personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually necessary and
desirable to the usual trade of petitioner’s business. There are inspectors
assigned at strategic places who board the bus and inspect the passengers
and the conductor’s reports. There is also a mandatory once-a-week car barn
day where the bus is regularly checked. Respondent, thus, is in constant
supervision while in the performance of his work. Thus, he is entitled to the
grant of SIL

2nd ISSUE:
1. Art 291 of LC states that all money claims arising from E-E relationship
shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued.
So the question is, when does the cause of action for money claims accrue
in order to determine the reckoning date of the 3 year prescriptive period
2. Cause of action has 3 elements
a. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created
b. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not
to violate such right and
c. 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
3. In cases of nonpayment of allowances and other monetary benefits, if it is
established that the benefits being claimed have been withheld from the
employee for a period longer than 3 years, the amount pertaining to the
period beyond the three year prescriptive period is therefore barred by
prescription.
4. In case of SIL, the employee may choose to either use his leave credits or
commute it to its monetary equivalent if not exhausted at the end of he
year. If the employee entitled to SIL does not use or commute the same,
he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the
commutation of his accrued SIL
5. Applying Art 291 of the LC, we can conclude that the 3 year prescriptive
period commences not at the end of the year when the employee
becomes entitled to the commutation of his SIL but from the time when
the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of
commutation or upon termination of the employee’s services.
6. In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his SIL nor demanded
for its commutation until his employment was terminated. Neither did
petitioner compensate his accumulated service incentive leave pay at the
time of his dismissal. It was only upon his filing of a complaint for illegal
dismissal, one month from the time of his dismissal, that respondent
demanded from his former employer commutation of his accumulated
 leave credits. His action, thus, accrued from the time when his employer
dismissed him and failed to pay his accumulated leave credits.
7. Therefore, the prescriptive period only commenced from the time the
employer failed to compensate his accumulated SIL pay at the time of his
dismissal.

PETITION DENIED