6/25/2021 G.R. No.

G.R. No. 211141, June 29, 2016 - HILARIO DASCO, REYMIR PARAFINA, RICHARD PARAFINA, EDILBERTO ANIA, MICHAEL ADANO…

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 211141, June 29, 2016

HILARIO DASCO, REYMIR PARAFINA, RICHARD PARAFINA, EDILBERTO ANIA, MICHAEL

ADANO, JAIME BOLO, RUBEN E. GULA, ANTONIO CUADERNO AND JOVITO
CATANGUI, Petitioners, v. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC/CENTURION SOLANO,
MANAGER, Respondents.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This appeal by petition for review on certiorari1  seeks to annul and set aside the Decision2  dated
August 30, 2013 and Resolution3 dated January 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 126210, which nullified and set aside the Decision4  dated February 22, 2012 and
Resolution5  dated May 30, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR
Case No. 07-10173-11, and reinstated the Decision6  dated October 17, 2011 of the Labor Arbiter
(LA), dismissing the monetary claims of Hilario Dasco, Reymir Parafina, Richard Parafina, Edilberto
Ania, Michael Adano, Jaime Bolo, Ruben E. Gula, Antonio Cuaderno and Jovito Catangui (petitioners).

The Facts

This case stemmed from a complaint7  for regularization, underpayment of wages, non-payment of
service incentive leave (SIL) pay, and attorney's fees, filed by the petitioners against Philtranco
Service Enterprises Inc., (PSEI), a domestic corporation engaged in providing public utility
transportation, and its Manager, Centurion Solano (respondents).

On various dates from 2006 to 2010, the petitioners were employed by the respondents as bus
drivers and/or conductors with travel routes of Manila (Pasay) to Bicol, Visayas and Mindanao,
and vice versa.8 chanrobleslaw

On July 4, 2011, the petitioners filed a case against the respondents alleging that: (1) they were
already qualified for regular employment status since they have been working with the respondents
for several years; (2) they were paid only P404.00 per round trip, which lasts from two to five days,
without overtime pay and below the minimum wage rate; (3) they cannot be considered as field
personnel because their working hours are controlled by the respondents from dispatching to end
point and their travel time is monitored and measured by the distance because they are in the
business of servicing passengers where time is of the essence; and (4) they had not been given their
yearly five-day SIL since the time they were hired by the respondents.9 chanrobleslaw

In response, the respondents asserted that: (1) the petitioners were paid on a fixed salary rate of
P0.49 centavos per kilometer run, or minimum wage, whichever is higher; (2) the petitioners are
seasonal employees since their contracts are for a fixed period and their employment was dependent
on the exigency of the extraordinary public demand for more buses during peak months of the year;
and (3) the petitioners are not entitled to overtime pay and SIL pay because they are field personnel
whose time outside the company premises cannot be determined with reasonable certainty since they
ply provincial routes and are left alone in the field unsupervised.10 chanrobleslaw

Ruling of the LA

On October 17, 2011, the LA rendered a Decision11  in favor of the respondents but declared the
petitioners as regular employees of the respondents.12 The LA held that the respondents were able to
prove that the petitioners were paid on a fixed salary of P0.49 per kilometer run, or minimum wage,
whichever is higher. The LA also found that the petitioners are not entitled to holiday pay and SIL pay
because they are considered as field personnel.13 chanrobleslaw

Dissatisfied with the LA's decision, the petitioners interposed a Partial Appeal14 filed on December 8,
2011 before the NLRC.

Ruling of the NLRC

In a Decision15 dated February 22, 2012, the NLRC granted the petitioners' appeal and modified the
LA's decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Partial Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the
[LA] dated October 17, 2011 is hereby MODIFIED in that [PSEI] is directed to pay [the
petitioners] wage differentials covering a period of three (3) years counted backwards
from the time they filed their complaint against respondents but taking into consideration
the respective dates of employment and the prevailing minimum wage rate applicable.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016junedecisions.php?id=529 1/3
6/25/2021 G.R. No. 211141, June 29, 2016 - HILARIO DASCO, REYMIR PARAFINA, RICHARD PARAFINA, EDILBERTO ANIA, MICHAEL ADANO…

[PSEI] is likewise directed to pay [the petitioners SIL] and overtime benefits limited also
for a period of three (3) years counted backwards from the time they filed their complaint
against respondents.

SO ORDERED.16 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The NLRC held that the petitioners are not field personnel considering that they ply specific routes
with fixed time schedules determined by the respondents; thus, they are entitled to minimum wage,
SIL pay, and overtime benefits.17 With regard to the respondents' claim that the petitioners have a
fixed term contract, the NLRC concurred with the findings of the LA that the respondents failed to
show any document, such as employment contracts and employment records, that would show the
dates of hiring, as well as the fixed period agreed upon.18 chanrobleslaw

The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration19  on March 12, 2012 but it was denied in a
Resolution20 dated May 30, 2012; hence, they filed a Petition for Certiorari21 before the CA.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of this case before the CA, the petitioners filed a motion for issuance
of writ of execution to enforce the NLRC decision. Accordingly, a Writ of Execution dated November 6,
2012 was issued. By virtue of such writ, two units of buses owned by PSEI were levied and sold in a
public auction, for the amount of P600,000.00. Thereafter, a corresponding Sheriffs Certificate of Sale
was issued.22 chanrobleslaw

Ruling of the CA

The CA, in its Decision23  dated August 30, 2013, reversed and set aside the NLRC rulings and
reinstated the LA's decision. Consequently, the writ of execution, levy, auction sale and certificate of
sale of PSEI's properties were declared null and void. The petitioners and the NLRC Sheriff were
directed to return the subject properties or turn over the monetary value thereof to the
respondents.24 chanrobleslaw

In overturning the NLRC's decision, the CA considered the petitioners as field workers and, on that
basis, denied their claim for benefits, such as overtime pay and SIL pay. According to the CA, there
was no way for the respondents to supervise the petitioners on their job. The petitioners are
practically on their own in plying the routes in the field, as in fact, they can deviate from the fixed
routes, take short cuts, make detours, and take breaks, among others. The petitioners work time and
performance are not constantly supervised by the respondents, thus making them field
personnel.25 cralawredchanrobleslaw

Aggrieved by the foregoing disquisition, the petitioners moved for reconsideration26but it was denied
by the CA in its Resolution27  dated January 28, 2014. Hence, the present petition for review
on certiorari.

The Issue

The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners as bus drivers and/or conductors are field
personnel, and thus entitled to overtime pay and SIL pay.28 chanrobleslaw

Ruling of the Court

The petition is impressed with merit.

Again, the Court reiterates that as a rule, it is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in
labor cases. Hence, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they
coincide with those of the LA and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even
finality by this Court. But where the findings of the NLRC and the LA are contradictory, as in the
present case, this Court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings.29 chanrobleslaw

Nevertheless, the facts and the issues surrounding this petition are no longer novel for this Court. The
determination of whether bus drivers and/or conductors are considered as field personnel was already
threshed out in the case of  Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista,30  where the Court
explained that:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As a general rule, [field personnel] are those whose performance of their

job/service is not supervised by the employer or his representative, the
workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of
work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; hence, they are paid
specific amount for rendering specific service or performing specific work.  If
required to be at specific places at specific times, employees including drivers
cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing
work away from the principal office of the employee, x x x
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016junedecisions.php?id=529 2/3
6/25/2021 G.R. No. 211141, June 29, 2016 - HILARIO DASCO, REYMIR PARAFINA, RICHARD PARAFINA, EDILBERTO ANIA, MICHAEL ADANO…

xxxx

x x x At this point, it is necessary to stress that the definition of a "field personnel" is not
merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but
also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer. As
discussed above, field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from
the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field
cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.  Thus, in order to conclude whether an
employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the
field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry
must be made as to whether or not the employee's time and performance are constantly
supervised by the employer.31

Guided by the foregoing norms, the NLRC properly concluded that the petitioners are not field
personnel but regular employees who perform tasks usually necessary and desirable to the
respondents' business. Evidently, the petitioners are not field personnel as defined above and the
NLRC's finding in this regard is supported by the established facts of this case: (1) the petitioners, as
bus drivers and/or conductors, are directed to transport their passengers at a specified time and
place; (2) they are not given the discretion to select and contract with prospective passengers; (3)
their actual work hours could be determined with reasonable certainty, as well as their average trips
per month; and (4) the respondents supervised their time and performance of duties.

In order to monitor their drivers and/or conductors, as well as the passengers and the bus itself, the
bus companies put checkers, who are assigned at tactical places along the travel routes that are plied
by their buses. The drivers and/or conductors are required to be at the specific bus terminals at a
specified time. In addition, there are always dispatchers in each and every bus terminal, who
supervise and ensure prompt departure at specified times and arrival at the estimated proper time.
Obviously, these drivers and/or conductors cannot be considered as field personnel because they are
under the control and constant supervision of the bus companies while in the performance of their
work.

As correctly observed by the NLRC:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

[I]t is undisputed that [the petitioners] as bus drivers/conductors ply specific routes of
[PSEI], x x x averaging 2 to 5 days per round trip. They follow fixed time schedules of
travel and follow the designated route of [PSEI]. Thus, in carrying out their functions as
bus drivers/conductors, they are not at liberty to deviate from the fixed time schedules for
departure or arrival or change the routes other than those specifically designated for
[PSEI], in accordance with the franchise granted to the [PSEI] as a public utility provider.
In other words, [the petitioners] are clearly under the strict supervision and control of
[PSEI] in the performance of their functions otherwise the latter will not be able to carry
out its business as public utility service provider in accordance with its franchise.32

The Court agrees with the above-quoted findings of the NLRC. Clearly, the petitioners, as bus drivers
and/or conductors, are left alone in the field with the duty to comply with the conditions of the
respondents' franchise, as well as to take proper care and custody of the bus they are using. Since
the respondents are engaged in the public utility business, the petitioners, as bus drivers and/or
conductors, should be considered as regular employees of the respondents because they perform
tasks which are directly and necessarily connected with the respondents' business. Thus, they are
consequently entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of the respondents, including
overtime pay and SIL pay.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2013 and Resolution dated
January 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126210 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision dated February 22, 2012 and Resolution dated May 30, 2012 of the National Labor
Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR Case No. 07-10173-11 are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016junedecisions.php?id=529 3/3