Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Autobus Vs Bautista Digested

    Uploaded by

    catanmarlon
    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Autobus Vs Bautista Digested

    Uploaded by

    catanmarlon
    4 views2 pages
    Case digest

    Original Title

    Autobus-vs-Bautista-digested

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4 views2 pages

    Autobus Vs Bautista Digested

    Uploaded by

    catanmarlon
    Case digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    156367 May 16, 2005

    AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    ANTONIO BAUTISTA, respondent.

    TOPIC: Right to Service Incentive Leave

    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Antonio Bautista is entitled to service incentive leave

    FACTS:

    Herein respondent, Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport
    Systems, Inc. (Autobus) since 1995, as driver-conductor and was paid on commission basis, seven percent
    (7%) of the total gross income per travel, on a twice a month basis. Due to an accident involving Bautista,
    his employment was terminated by Autobus prompting the former to institute a complaint for illegal
    dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against
    Autobus on 02 February 2000.

    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint against illegal dismissal but ordered the payment of
    respondent’s 13th month pay and his service incentive leave pay for all the years he had been in service
    with the respondent. On appeal the 13th month pay was removed by the NLRC while the service incentive
    leave pay was maintained. Such was affirmed in toto by the CA, hence the present petition.

    RULING:

    Yes, respondent Antonio Bautista is entitled to service incentive leave. According to the court
    petitioner’s contention that respondent is not entitled to the grant of service incentive leave just because
    he was paid on purely commission basis is misplaced. What must be ascertained in order to resolve the
    issue of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave to respondent is whether or not he is a field
    personnel.

    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 observed by the Labor Arbiter and concurred in by the Court of Appeals:

    It is of judicial notice that along the routes that are plied by these bus companies, there are its inspectors
    assigned at strategic places who board the bus and inspect the passengers, the punched tickets, and the
    conductor’s reports. There is also the mandatory once-a-week car barn or shop day, where the bus is
    regularly checked as to its mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic aspects, whether or not there are
    problems thereon as reported by the driver and/or conductor. They too, must be at specific place as [sic]
    specified time, as they generally observe prompt departure and arrival from their point of origin to their
    point of destination. In each and every depot, there is always the Dispatcher whose function is precisely to
    see to it that the bus and its crew leave the premises at specific times and arrive at the estimated proper
    time. These, are present in the case at bar. The driver, the complainant herein, was therefore under
    constant supervision while in the performance of this work. He cannot be considered a field personnel

    DOCTRINE: drivers who are under constant supervision while in the performance of work cannot be
    considered a field personnel and hence are entitled to service incentive leave pay.

    You might also like