Article 95: Service Incentive Leave Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs Bautista FACTS: Antonio Bautista was employed by Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. in May 1995. He was assigned to the Isabela- Manila route and he was paid by commission (7% of gross income per travel for twice a month). In January 2000, while he was driving his bus he bumped another bus owned by Auto Bus. He claimed that he bumped the he accidentally bumped the bus as he was so tired and that he has not slept for more than 24 hours because Auto Bus required him to return to Isabela immediately after arriving at Manila. Damages were computed and 30% or P75,551.50 of it was being charged to Bautista. Bautista refused payment. Auto Bus terminated Bautista after due hearing as part of Auto Bus’ management prerogative. Bautista sued Auto Bus for Illegal Dismissal. The Labor Arbiter Monroe Tabingan dismissed Bautista’s petition but ruled that Bautista is entitled to P78,117.87 13 th month pay payments and P13,788.05 for his unpaid service incentive leave pay. The case was appealed before the National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC modified the LA’s ruling. It deleted the award for 13 th Month pay. The court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Auto Bus averred that Bautista is a commissioned employee and if that is not reason enough that Bautista is also a field personnel hence he is not entitled to a service incentive leave. They invoke: Art. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay; and (d) 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 in a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof; . ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. If he is, Whether or not the three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, is applicable to respondent’s claim of service incentive leave pay. HELD: Yes, Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not mean that just because an employee is paid on commission basis he is already
Article 95: Service Incentive LeaveAuto Bus Transport Systems,
Inc.vs BautistaFACTS: Antonio Bautista wasemployed by Auto Bus
TransportSystems, Inc. inMay 1995.
Hewasassinedtot!eIsabela"Manilarouteand !e was paid by commission
#$% o&ross incomeper tra'el &or twiceamont!(. In )anuary
*+++, w!ile !e wasdri'in !is bus !e bumped
anot!erbusownedbyAutoBus. Heclaimedt!at
!ebumpedt!e!eaccidentallybumpedt!ebusas!ewassotiredandt!at !e!as
not slept &or moret!an *, !ours because Auto Busre-uired !im to
return to Isabelaimmediatelya&ter arri'inat Manila..amaes were
computed and /+% or0$5,551.5+ o& it was bein c!ared toBautista.
Bautista re&used payment.Auto Bus terminated Bautista
a&terdue !earin as part o& Auto Bus1manaement preroati'e.
Bautistasued Auto Bus &or Illeal .ismissal.T!e 2abor Arbiter
Monroe Tabinandismissed Bautista1s petition but ruledt!at Bautista
is entitled to 0$3,11$.3$1/t! mont! pay payments and01/,$33.+5
&or !is unpaid ser'iceincenti'e lea'e pay. T!e case wasappealed
be&ore t!e 4ational 2abor5elations6ommission.
4256modi7edt!e2A1srulin. It deletedt!eaward&or 1/t! Mont! pay.
T!e court o&Appealsa8rmedt!e4256. AutoBusa'erred t!at Bautista
is acommissioned employee and i& t!at isnot reason enou! t!at
Bautista isalso a 7eld personnel !ence !e is
notentitledtoaser'iceincenti'elea'e.T!ey in'o9e:Art. 95. 5I:HT
T;S
