Important Glossary PDF- Portable Document Format

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995

PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC., petitioner,

vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS EMPLOYEES UNION-TUPAS, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

FELICIANO, J.:

On 11 November 1993, this Court, through its Third Division, rendered a decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner

Philippine Duplicators, Inc. (Duplicators) in G.R. No. 110068. The Court upheld the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the order of Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II directing petitioner to pay 13th month pay to private

respondent employees computed on the basis of their fixed wages plus sales commissions. The Third Division also denied with finality on 15

December 1993 the Motion for Reconsideration filed (on 12 December 1993) by petitioner.

On 17 January 1994, petitioner Duplicators filed (a) a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and (b) a Second Motion

for Reconsideration. This time, petitioner invoked the decision handed down by this Court, through its Second Division, on 10 December

1993 in the two (2) consolidated cases of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. Hon. Dionisio de la Serna and Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. vs.

Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano, in G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, respectively. In its decision, the Second Division inter alia declared null and

void the second paragraph of Section 5 (a)

of the Revised Guidelines issued by then Secretary of Labor Drilon.

Petitioner submits that the decision in the Duplicators case should now be considered as having been

abandoned or reversed by the Boie-Takeda decision, considering that the latter went "directly opposite

and contrary to" the conclusion reached in the former. Petitioner prays that the decision rendered in

Duplicators be set aside and another be entered directing the dismissal of the money claims of private

respondent Philippine Duplicators' Employees' Union.

In view of the nature of the issues raised, the Third Division of this Court referred the petitioner's Second

Motion for Reconsideration, and its Motion for Leave to Admit the Second Motion for Reconsideration, to

the Court en banc en consulta. The Court en banc, after preliminary deliberation, and inorder to settle the

condition of the relevant case law, accepted G.R. No. 110068 as a banc case.

Deliberating upon the arguments contained in petitioner's Second Motion for Reconsideration, as well as

its Motion for Leave to Admit the Second Motion for Reconsideration, and after review of the doctrines

embodied, respectively, in Duplicators and Boie-Takeda, we consider that these Motions must fail.

The decision rendered in Boie-Takeda cannot serve as a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Boie-Takeda decision was promulgated a month after this Court, (through its Third Division), had

rendered the decision in the instant case. Also, the petitioner's (first) Motion for Reconsideration of the

decision dated 10 November 1993 had already been denied, with finality, on 15 December 1993, i.e.;

before the Boie-Takeda decision became final on 5 January 1994.

Preliminarily, we note that petitioner Duplicators did not put in issue the validity of the Revised Guidelines

on the Implementary on of the 13th Month Pay Law, issued on November 16, 1987, by then Labor

Secretary Franklin M. Drilon, either in its Petition for Certiorari or in its (First) Motion for Reconsideration.

In fact, petitioner's counsel relied upon these Guidelines and asserted their validity in opposing the

decision rendered by public respondent NLRC. Any attempted change in petitioner's theory, at this late

stage of the proceedings, cannot be allowed.

More importantly, we do not agree with petitioner that the decision in Boie-Takeda is "directly opposite or

contrary to" the decision in the present (Philippine Duplicators). To the contrary, the doctrines enunciated

in these two (2) cases in fact co-exist one with the other. The two (2) cases present quite different factual

situations (although the same word "commissions" was used or invoked) the legal characterizations of

which must accordingly differ.

The Third Division in Durplicators found that:

In the instant case, there is no question that the sales commission earned by the

salesmen who make or close a sale of duplicating machines distributed by petitioner

corporation, constitute part of the compensation or remuneration paid to salesmen for

serving as salesmen, and hence as part of the "wage" or salary of petitioner's salesmen.

Indeed, it appears that petitioner pays its salesmen a small fixed or guaranteed wage; the

greater part of the salesmen's wages or salaries being composed of the sales or

incentive commissions earned on actual sales closed by them. No doubt this particular

galary structure was intended for the benefit of the petitioner corporation, on the apparent

assumption that thereby its salesmen would be moved to greater enterprise and diligence

and close more sales in the expectation of increasing their sales commissions. This,

however, does not detract from the character of such commissions as part of the salary

or wage paid to each of its salesmen for rendering services to petitioner corporation.

In other words, the sales commissions received for every duplicating machine sold constituted part of the

basic compensation or remuneration of the salesmen of Philippine Duplicators for doing their job. The

portion of the salary structure representing commissions simply comprised an automatic increment to the

monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a salesman. Especially significant here

also is the fact that the fixed or guaranteed portion of the wages paid to the Philippine Duplicators'

salesmen represented only 15%-30% of an employee's total earnings in a year. We note the following

facts on record:

Salesmen's Total Earnings and 13th Month Pay

For the Year 1986

Name of Total Amount Paid Montly Fixed

Salesman Earnings as 13th Month Pay Wages x 12

Baylon, P76,610.30 P1,350.00 P16,200.00

Benedicto

Bautista 90,780.85 1,182.00 14,184.00

Salvador

Brito, 64,382.75 1,238.00 14,856.00

Tomas

Bunagan, 89,287.75 1,266.00 15,192.00

Jorge

Canilan, 74,678.17 1,350.00 16,200.00

Rogelio

Dasig, 54,625.16 1,378,00 16,536.00

Jeordan

End of Preview - Want to read all 44 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS EMPLOYEES UNION-TUPAS, respondents. R E S O L U T I O N FELICIANO, J.: On 11 November 1993, this Court, through its Third Division, rendered a decision dismissing the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner Philippine Duplicators, Inc. (Duplicators) in G.R. No. 110068. The Court upheld the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the order of Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II directing petitioner to pay 13th month pay to private respondent employees computed on the basis of their fixed wages plus sales commissions. The Third Division also denied with finality on 15 December 1993 the Motion for Reconsideration filed (on 12 December 1993) by petitioner. On 17 January 1994, petitioner Duplicators filed (a) a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration and (b) a Second Motion for Reconsideration. This time, petitioner invoked the decision handed down by this Court, through its Second Division, on 10 December 1993 in the two (2) consolidated cases of Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. Hon. Dionisio de la Serna and Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. vs. Hon. Cresenciano B. Trajano, in G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, respectively. In its decision, the Second Division inter alia declared null and void the second paragraph of ...
Purchase document to see full attachment