Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

LABOR 1 – Labor Standards Law; Minimum Wages and Wage Fixing Machinery; Cash Wage/ Commission.

180 Toyota Pasig, Inc. v. Vilma S. De Peralta1


G.R No 213488, 7 November 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, J. c) Workers and employees who, prior to July 1, 1989, were receiving a basic
wage of more than P100.00 per day or its monthly equivalent, are not by law
Summary of the Facts: Respondent Vilma De Peralta seeks to collect from entitled to the wage increase provided under the Act. They may however,
Toyota Shaw her unpaid commissions, tax rebate for achieved monthly receive wage increases through the correction of wage distortions in
targets, salary deductions, salary for January 2012, and success share or accordance with Section 16, Chapter I of these Rules.
profit sharing, as she claims that she was illegally dismissed.
Relevant info on the topic:
The Court found that Vilma was dismissed for valid reasons but still ordered While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to
Toyota to pay the commissions as they are explicitly included in the inspire employees to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly
meaning of wages as explained in Section 97(f) of the Labor Code. assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for
services rendered.
Provisions applicable:
LC, Art. 97(f). Definitions. As used in this title: Full FACTS:
(f) “Wage” paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings,  The case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, illegal
however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, deduction, unpaid commission, annual profit sharing, damages, and
whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or attorney's fees filed by Vilma De Peralta against Toyota Pasig.
other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to  In March 1997, Vilma was hired as a cashier by Toyota. In 2004,
an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work she was promoted to Insurance Sales Executive which she held
done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes from 2007 to 2012. Things turned sour when Vilma’s husband,
the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Romulo, the union president of the Toyota Shaw-Pasig Workers
Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by Union, organized a collective bargaining unit.
the employer to the employee. “Fair and reasonable value” shall not include  Vilma alleged that respondent suddenly dismissed her husband
any profit to the employer, or to any person affiliated with the employer. along with other union leaders and started harassing her because of
her husband’s union.
Labor Code IRR, Book III, Rule VII-A, Sec. 4. When Wage Increase Due  Vilma also claimed this was the reason why she was accused of
Other Workers. misappropriating the company’s money because of which she was
a) All workers and employees who, prior to July 1, 1989, were already preventively suspended and subsequently terminated.
receiving a basic wage above the statutory minimum wage rates provided  This prompted her to file a complaint, where she also prayed for the
under Republic Act 6640 but not over P100.00 per day shall receive a wage payment of her earned substantial commissions, tax rebates, and
increase equivalent to that provided in the preceding Section. other benefits from July 2011 to January 2012, amounting to
P617,248.08.
b) Those receiving not more than the following monthly basic wage rates  In their defense, Toyota averred that respondent was dismissed
prior to July 1, 1989 shall be deemed covered by the preceding subsection: from service for just cause as respondent was charged and proven
(i) P3,257.50 — where the workers and employees work everyday, including to have committed acts of dishonesty and falsification by claiming
premium payments for Sundays or rest days, special days and regular commissions for new business accounts which should have been
holidays. credited to the dealership's marketing department.
(ii) P3,041.67 — where the workers and employees do not work but  LA: dismissed the complaint but ordered petitioner to pay
considered paid on rest days, special days and regular holidays. respondent the amount of ll,111.50 php representing the Vilma’s
(iii) P2,616.67 — where the workers and employees do not work and are not salary for January 2012.
considered paid on Sundays or rest days.
 NLRC affirmed LA ruling but modified the award to P617,248
(iv) P2,183.33 — where the workers and employees do not work and are not
representing Vilma’s unpaid commissions, tax rebate for achieved
considered paid on Saturdays and Sundays or rest days.
monthly targets, salary deductions, salary for the month of January
2012, and success share/profit sharing. NLRC agreed that
1 Digest from C2021 respondent's act of taking commissions on accounts which belong
LABOR 1 – Labor Standards Law; Minimum Wages and Wage Fixing Machinery; Cash Wage/ Commission.
to the dealership's marketing department constituted serious
misconduct, a valid ground for dismissal. Both parties appealed to
the CA.
 CA: Dismissed the consolidated petitions and affirmed the NLRC
ruling in toto.
 Hence, this petition which alleges that CA erred in awarding
respondent her monetary claims despite failing to prove her
entitlement thereto. Toyota likewise contends that such monetary
claims do not partake of unpaid wages/salaries, as well as the labor
standard benefits of employees as provided by law

ISSUES/RATIOS:
W/N CA correctly upheld Toyota’s liability at P617,248.08 representing
Vilma’s commissions, tax rebate for achieved monthly targets, salary
deductions, salary for the month of January 2012, and success share
or profit sharing? YES
 Section 97 (f) of the Labor Code explicitly includes
commissions as part of wages. This is because “while
commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of
encouragement to inspire employees to put a little more
industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them, these
commissions are also direct remunerations for services
rendered.” (Iran v. NLRC)
 In this case, respondent's monetary claims, such as commissions,
tax rebates for achieved monthly targets, and success share/profit
sharing, are given to her as incentives in order for her to put extra
effort in performing her duties as an ISE. Clearly, such claims fall
within the ambit of the general term "commissions" which in tum, fall
within the definition of wages pursuant to prevailing law and
jurisprudence.
 Thus, respondent's allegation of nonpayment of such monetary
benefits places the burden on the employer for once the
employee has established their entitlement to benefits, the
employer has the burden of proving they have complied with it.
In this case, petitioner simply dismissed respondent's claims for
being purely self-serving and unfounded, without even presenting
any tinge of proof showing that respondent was already paid of such
benefits or that she was not entitled thereto. This burden, petitioner
failed to discharge.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated April


14, 2014 and July 24, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos.
131495 and 131558 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen