FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. AND/OR ALEXANDER UY,PETITIONERS, VS. JIMMY LEBATIQUE AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,RESPONDENTS.

Far East Agricultural Supply versus Lebatique

The Case

This is a labor case about a truck driver who claimed he was illegally dismissed and denied his overtime pay. Far East Agricultural Supply, Incorporated and its General Manager, Alexander Uy, are the petitioners. Jimmy Lebatique, the truck driver, is the respondent. The case matters because the Supreme Court settles two questions every labor lawyer must know: when does an employee's act amount to abandonment of work, and who qualifies as a field personnel exempt from overtime and service incentive leave pay. The Court also reminds us that money claims arising from employment prescribe in three years.

Procedural History

Lebatique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime pay before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full back wages, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave pay, and overtime pay, with a total award computed at 196,659.72 pesos. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no dismissal because Lebatique was merely suspended, and that he was a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay. Lebatique moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the National Labor Relations Commission and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Lebatique was illegally dismissed and was not a field personnel. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Far East Agricultural Supply, Incorporated hired Jimmy Lebatique on March 4, 1996 as a truck driver with a daily wage of 223.50 pesos. His job was to deliver animal feeds to the company's clients.

On January 24, 2000, Lebatique complained about nonpayment of overtime work, particularly on January 22, 2000, when he was required to make a second delivery in Novaliches, Quezon City. That same day, Manuel Uy, brother of the General Manager, suspended Lebatique, apparently for illegal use of a company vehicle. Lebatique reported for work the next day, but he was prohibited from entering the company premises. On January 26, 2000, he sought help from the Department of Labor and Employment Public Assistance and Complaints Unit regarding his unpaid overtime. Two days later, he received a telegram requiring him to report for work. When he reported on January 29, 2000, Alexander Uy asked him why he was claiming overtime pay. Lebatique explained that he had never been paid for overtime since he started working, and that Manuel had fired him. After talking to Manuel, Alexander terminated Lebatique and told him to look for another job.

On March 20, 2000, Lebatique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime pay.

Issues

• Whether or not Jimmy Lebatique was illegally dismissed.
• Whether or not Lebatique was a field personnel, and therefore not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.

Applicable Provisions

Article 82 of the Labor Code defines who are field personnel and provides:

Article 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. 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.

This provision is decisive on whether Lebatique is entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay, because field personnel are excluded from the coverage of the title on working conditions and rest periods.

Article 291 of the Labor Code governs the prescriptive period for money claims and provides:

All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.

This provision limits Lebatique's overtime claim to the three years preceding the filing of his complaint.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Lebatique was illegally dismissed. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid cause, and the petitioners failed to discharge that burden. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be absence without justifiable reason, and a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship. The records showed no such intention. When Alexander Uy told Lebatique to look for another job, Lebatique was in effect dismissed. Even assuming he was merely suspended earlier, the records did not show that he was given the opportunity to explain his side. The Court also found that it was Lebatique's complaint for nonpayment of overtime pay that provoked management to dismiss him. An employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his work, and the filing of the complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work.

On the second issue, the Court held that Lebatique was not a field personnel. The definition of 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. The Court found that company drivers are directed to deliver goods at a specified time and place; they are not given the discretion to solicit, select, and contact prospective clients; and Far East issued a directive that drivers should stay at the client's premises during truck-ban hours from 5:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 5:00 to 9:00 in the evening. Drivers are under the control and supervision of management officers. Lebatique is therefore a regular employee entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.

On the money claims, the Court held that all money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Lebatique timely filed his claim for service incentive leave pay because the prescriptive period commenced at the time he was terminated. But his claim for nonpayment of overtime pay since March 1996 could only cover the period within three years preceding the filing of the complaint on March 20, 2000. The Court found the selected time records insufficient to compute the overtime pay properly, and held that the Labor Arbiter should have required the petitioners to present daily time records, payroll, or other documents in management's control.

Doctrine

First, in illegal dismissal cases, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid cause. Abandonment as a just cause for dismissal requires two elements: absence without justifiable reason, and a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship. The filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negates abandonment.

Second, under Article 82 of the Labor Code, field personnel are 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. The definition is not merely concerned with location but also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer. Company drivers who are directed to deliver goods at a specified time and place, who have no discretion to solicit clients, and who are under the control and supervision of management officers are not field personnel.

Third, under Article 291 of the Labor Code, money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship prescribe in three years from the time the cause of action accrued. If benefits have been withheld for a period longer than three years, only the amount pertaining to the three years before the filing of the complaint may be demanded.

Disposition

The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals decision and resolution are affirmed with modification, and the case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the exact amount of overtime pay and other monetary benefits due Jimmy Lebatique, which the petitioners should pay without further delay. Costs are against the petitioners.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a driver who is told to look for another job after complaining about unpaid overtime is illegally dismissed, and a company driver under the control and supervision of management is not a field personnel exempt from overtime pay. Examiners like to use this case to test the definition of field personnel under Article 82 of the Labor Code and the three-year prescriptive period for money claims under Article 291.