Auto Bus Transport Systems vs

Bautista
458 SCRA 578 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Service Incentive Leave Pay – Curious Animal
Doctrine

Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was assigned
to the Isabela-Manila route and he was paid by commission (7% of gross income per travel for twice
a month).

In January 2000, while he was driving his bus he bumped another bus owned by Auto Bus. He
claimed that he accidentally bumped the bus as he was so tired and that he has not slept for more than
24 hours because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela immediately after arriving at Manila.
Damages were computed and 30% or P75,551.50 of it was being charged to Bautista. Bautista
refused payment.

Auto Bus terminated Bautista’s employment after due hearing as part of Auto Bus’ management
prerogative. Bautista sued Auto Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter Monroe Tabingan
dismissed Bautista’s petition but ruled that Bautista is entitled to P78,117.87 13 th month pay payment
and P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive leave pay.

The case was appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC modified the LA’s
ruling. It deleted the award for 13th Month pay. The court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned employee and if that is not reason enough that
Bautista is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a service incentive leave. They invoke:

Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

(a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service
incentive leave of five days with pay.

Book III, Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE

SECTION 1. Coverage. ‘ This rule shall apply to all employees except:

(d) Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer
including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely commission basis, or those who are
paid in a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance
thereof; . . .

ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. If he is, Whether or not the
three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, is
applicable to respondent’s claim of service incentive leave pay.
HELD: Yes, Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. The Supreme Court emphasized that it
does not mean that just because an employee is paid on commission basis he is already barred to
receive service incentive leave pay.

The question actually boils down to whether or not Bautista is a field employee.

According to Article 82 of the Labor Code, ‘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.

As a general rule, field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised
by the employer or his representative, the workplace being away from the principal office and whose
hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they are paid specific
amount for rendering specific service or performing specific work. If required to be at specific places
at specific times, employees including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact
that they are performing work away from the principal office of the employee.

Certainly, Bautista is not a field employee. He has a specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that
is a specific place that he needs to be at work. There are inspectors hired by Auto Bus to constantly
check him. There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the passengers, the punched tickets, and
the driver. Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away from the Auto Bus main office.

On the other hand, the 3 year prescriptive period ran but Bautista was able to file his suit in time
before the prescriptive period expired. It was only upon his filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal,
one month from the time of his dismissal, that Bautista demanded from his former employer
commutation of his accumulated leave credits. His cause of action to claim the payment of his
accumulated service incentive leave thus accrued from the time when his employer dismissed him
and failed to pay his accumulated leave credits.

Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for service incentive leave pay only
commenced from the time the employer failed to compensate his accumulated service incentive leave
pay at the time of his dismissal. Since Bautista had filed his money claim after only one month from
the time of his dismissal, necessarily, his money claim was filed within the prescriptive period
provided for by Article 291 of the Labor Code.

Definition of Service Incentive Leave

Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served within 12 months,
whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working, including
authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a
matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than 12 months, in
which case said period shall be considered as one year. It is also commutable to its money equivalent
if not used or exhausted at the end of the year. In other words, an employee who has served for one
year is entitled to it. He may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary value.