Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Andteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.

    Uploaded by

    Jeffrey Medina
    Margallo resigned from her job at Grandteq Industrial Steel Products and claimed she was owed unpaid sales commissions and reimbursement of car loan payments. The labor arbiter found she was not entitled to the commissions or reimbursement. The NLRC partially reversed and ordered reimbursement of car loan payments but not commissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed reimbursement of car loans and payment of commissions. The Supreme Court agreed and found the car loan agreement could not unduly burden Margallo and that Grandteq had not met its burden of proving the commissions were paid.

    Copyright:

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

    Andteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.

    Uploaded by

    Jeffrey Medina
    111 views2 pages
    Margallo resigned from her job at Grandteq Industrial Steel Products and claimed she was owed unpaid sales commissions and reimbursement of car loan payments. The labor arbiter found she was not entitled to the commissions or reimbursement. The NLRC partially reversed and ordered reimbursement of car loan payments but not commissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed reimbursement of car loans and payment of commissions. The Supreme Court agreed and found the car loan agreement could not unduly burden Margallo and that Grandteq had not met its burden of proving the commissions were paid.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    12.Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Margallo resigned from her job at Grandteq Industrial Steel Products and claimed she was owed unpaid sales commissions and reimbursement of car loan payments. The labor arbiter found she was not entitled to the commissions or reimbursement. The NLRC partially reversed and ordered reimbursement of car loan payments but not commissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed reimbursement of car loans and payment of commissions. The Supreme Court agreed and found the car loan agreement could not unduly burden Margallo and that Grandteq had not met its burden of proving the commissions were paid.

    Copyright:

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

    Andteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.

    Uploaded by

    Jeffrey Medina
    Margallo resigned from her job at Grandteq Industrial Steel Products and claimed she was owed unpaid sales commissions and reimbursement of car loan payments. The labor arbiter found she was not entitled to the commissions or reimbursement. The NLRC partially reversed and ordered reimbursement of car loan payments but not commissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed reimbursement of car loans and payment of commissions. The Supreme Court agreed and found the car loan agreement could not unduly burden Margallo and that Grandteq had not met its burden of proving the commissions were paid.

    Copyright:

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

    Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs.

    Edna Margallo

    G.R. No. 181393, July 28, 2009


    Facts:

    Grandteq is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling welding electrodes, alloy steels,
    aluminum and copper alloys. Gonzales is the President/Owner of Grandteq. Grandteq employed
    Margallo as Sales Engineer. Margallo claimed she availed herself of the car loan program offered to
    her by Grandteq as a reward for being "Salesman of the Year." She paid the down payment on a
    brand new Toyota Corolla, amounting to P201,000.00, out of her own pocket. The monthly
    amortization for the car was P10,302.00, of which P5,302.00 was to be her share and P5,000.00 was
    to be the share of Grandteq.

    On 29 December 2003, Margallo received a letter allegedly questioning Margallos’s acts of working
    with JVM Industrial Supply and Allied Services concurrent with being employed with Grandteq
    Industrial Steel Products, Margallo claims that she was following her supervisors orders. Margallo
    then averred that in January 2004, De Leon asked her to just resign, promising that if she did, she
    would still be paid her commissions and other benefits, as well as be reimbursed her car loan
    payments. Relying on De Leon’s promise, Margallo tendered on 13 January 2004, her irrevocable
    resignation, effective immediately.

    Margallo, however, alleged that she was never paid her money claims. Grandteq failed to pay her
    commissions in the sum of P87,508.00, equivalent to 5% of the total sales that she collected as of
    January 2004, which amounted to P1,750,148.84. Grandteq likewise failed to refund the "sales
    accommodations" or advances she gave her customers. In addition, after Margallo’s resignation,
    Grandteq sold her car to Annaliza Estrella, another employee, for P550,000.00.12

    The Labor Arbiter held that Margallo was not able to prove by substantial evidence her entitlement
    to the sales commission, the payment of cash incentive and no right to the reimbursement of her car
    loan payments under her car loan agreement with Grandteq.

    NLRC partially reversed the decision and ordered Grandteq and Gonzales reimburse the car loan
    payments made by Margallo the NLRC reasoned. NLRC affirmed her entitlement to the unpaid sales
    commission, but not to the cash incentive. Like the NLRC, the Court of Appeals found that Margallo
    had a right to be reimbursed her car loan payments, and the terms of the car loan agreement
    between Margallo and Grandteq should not be applied for being highly prejudicial to the employee’s
    interest. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the order of the NLRC that Grandteq and Gonzales
    pay Margallo her sales commission, placing the burden upon the employer to prove that the
    employee’s money claims had been paid:

    Issue:

    Is Margallo entitled reimbursement for car loans?

    Ruling:

    The Court, is in agreement with the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. Generally speaking, contracts are
    respected as the law between the contracting parties. The contracting parties may establish such
    stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
    contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The Court rigorously disapproves
    contracts that demonstrate a clear attempt to exploit the employee and deprive him of the protection
    sanctioned by both the Constitution and the Labor Code. The Constitution and the Labor Code
    mandate the protection of labor. Hence, as a matter of judicial policy, this Court has, in a number of
    instances, leaned backwards to protect labor and the working class against the machinations and
    incursions of their more financially entrenched employers.
    Although not strictly a labor contract, the car loan agreement herein involves a benefit extended by
    the employers, Grandteq and Gonzales, to their employee, Margallo. It should benefit, and not unduly
    burden, Margallo. The Court cannot, in any way, uphold a car loan agreement that threatens the
    employee with the forfeiture of all the car loan payments he/she had previously made, plus loss of
    the possession of the car, should the employee wish to resign; otherwise, said agreement can then be
    used by the employer as an instrument to either hold said employee hostage to the job or punish
    him/her for resigning.

    The Court further finds no error in the grant by the Court of Appeals and the NLRC of Margallo’s
    claim for sales commission. In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer has the
    burden of proving that the employees did receive their wages and benefits and that the same were
    paid in accordance with law. It is settled that once the employee has set out with particularity in his
    complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled
    to, and which the employer allegedly failed to pay him, it becomes the employer’s burden to prove
    that it has paid these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; and even
    where the employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
    defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment.

    You might also like