Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, 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 a fixed amount for performing work
irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof
are not entitled to Service Incentive Leave.

Workers paid by results are workers who are engaged on pakyao, piecework, task
and other non-time work. They are so called because they are paid not on the basis of
the time spent on their work but according to the quantity, quality or kind of job and
the consequent results thereof.
Workers paid by results may be classified into:
a) Supervised workers; and
b) Unsupervised workers.

The distinctions between supervised and unsupervised workers paid by results are as
follows:

Those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer. Here,
there is an element of control and supervision over the manner as to how the work is
to be performed. A piece-rate worker belongs to this category especially if he
performs his work in the company premises; and

Those whose time and performance are unsupervised. Here, the employer’s control is
over the result of the work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this
group. Both classes of workers are paid per unit accomplished. Piece-rate
payment is generally practiced in garment factories where work is done in the
company premises, while payment on pakyao and takay basis is commonly observed
in the agricultural industry, such as in sugar
plantations where the work is performed in bulk or in volumes, hence, difficult to quan
tify.

The law does not make any categorical differentiation among the workers
paid by results. Thus, the workers may be on pakyao (sometimes
spelled “pakyaw”), takay or piece-rate or output basis. All of them are similar
in character in that they are all paid on the basis of the results of their work.
When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.

References: Pre-week notes of Atty. Joselito Chan

Dasco vs. Philtranco, G.R. No. 211141, 29 June 2016
David vs. Macasio, G.R. No. 195466, 02 July 2014