Asentista Vs JUPP

G.R. No.
229404, January 24, 2018
MARILYN B. ASENTISTA, Petitioner, v. JUPP & COMPANY, INC., AND/OR MR. JOSEPH V. ASCUTIA,
Respondents. REYES, JR., J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 filed by Marilyn B. Asentista (Asentista) seeking
to set aside the Decision2 dated August 31, 2016 and Resolution3 dated November 17, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
(CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 06747-MIN, which set aside and nullified the Resolutions 4 dated November 28, 2014 and
February 27, 2015 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), ordering respondents JUPP & Company, Inc.
(JUPP) and/or its President Joseph V. Ascutia (Ascutia) to pay Asentista her remaining unpaid sales commissions in
the amount of P210,077.95 plus ten percent (10%) total monetary award as attorney's fees.
Asentista was employed by JUPP as sales secretary on April 16, 2007. On March 14, 2008, she became a regular
employee of the company as a sales assistant and was later appointed in July 2010 as a sales agent of JUPP for its
Northern Mindanao area. As a sales agent, Asentista became entitled to a sales commission of two percent for every
attained monthly quota. However, despite reaching her monthly quota, JUPP failed to give Asentista her earned sales
commission despite repeated requests.5
Meanwhile in 2011, JUPP, through its Administrative and Finance Officer Malou Ramiro, issued a new Toyota Avanza
vehicle to Asentista in view of her sales performance in the Cagayan De Oro area. The ownership of the car, however,
remains with the company. Notwithstanding lack of agreement, JUPP deducted car plan participation payment
amounting to P113,000.00 and one year rental payment of P68,721.36 from her unpaid sales commission. 6
On February 4, 2013, Asentista tendered her resignation effective February 28, 2013 and returned the Avanza vehicle
to JUPP through Emmanuel P. Pabon.7 Thereafter, she filed a claim for unpaid commission and refund for car plan
deduction based on the computation8 sent by Ascutia, summarized as follows
2010--------------------------- P 5,361.61
2011--------------------------- P 178,105.06
2012--------------------------- P 143,295.53
Total Amount: P 334,117.20
Less: P85,305.31 (Cash Advances - Asentista's total debts to JUPP)
-------------------------------------
Total Amount: P248,811.89
Less: P38,733.94 (deposited commission to Asentista's account)
-------------------------------------
Total Sales Commission due: P 210,077.99
As a result of the respondents' incessant refusal to pay, Asentista filed a complaint against JUPP and Ascutia before
the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. 10, Cagayan de Oro City for non-payment for sales commission. 9
For their part, the respondents opposed the allegations of Aseptista, arguing the burden of proof to substantiate her
claim for unpaid commission and car participation refund rested upon her. Since the employment agreement signed by
Asentista did not include any remuneration for a sales commission and car participation plan, her claim lacked any
legal basis for entitlement Further, Asentista was only allowed to use the Toyota Avanza with car participation during
the amortization period for both her personal and official use due to the generosity of JUPP. 10
On the other hand, JUPP admitted that despite lack of explicit provision in the employment agreement, Asentista was
given during her employment discretionary sales commission subject to the sole prerogative of the company. JUPP
likewise acknowledged sole discretion to allow Asentista to own the vehicle after the amortization period. 11
In a Decision12 dated November 28, 2013, Labor Arbiter (LA) Rammex C. Tiglao dismissed the complaint of Asentista
for lack of merit. In so ruling, the LA emphasized the non-entitlement of Asentista to claim for sales commission or
refund for amortization payment for the use of the company's car as shown by the employment agreement between
JUPP and the complainant. Furthermore, the LA opined on the improbability of omission of the entitlement of unpaid
commission in the resignation letter of the complainant, given her six years of employment and educational attainment.
Finally, the affidavit and supporting documents of Asentista were disregarded for being self-serving, unreliable and
unsubstantial evidence. Thus, it was ruled:
WHEREFORE the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The respondents' counter-claims for exemplary damages and attorney's fees are dismissed for want of jurisdiction
and/or lack of merit.13
On appeal, the NLRC in a Resolution14 dated November 28, 2014 reversed the decision of the LA and gave more
credence on Asentista's claim for unpaid commission based on Ascutia's electronic messages. Further, in the absence
of express stipulation, the respondents lacked authority to forfeit Asentista's sales commission and apply the same as
rentals for the personal use of the vehicle.15 Accordingly, it was held that:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED.
Respondents are hereby ORDERED to pay Complainant her remaining unpaid sales commissions in the amount of
P210,077.95 plus ten percent of the total monetary award as attorney's fees
The motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution 17 dated February
27, 2015.
Aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA alleging
grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC for reversing the ruling of the LA and ordering them to pay the
complainant the unpaid sales commissions with additional 10% of the total monetary award as attorney's fees. 18
In a Decision19 dated August 31, 2016, the CA ruled favorably on the petition and reinstated the decision of the LA. CA
agreed with the respondents that Asentista is not entitled to the grant of sales commission based on the "Job Offer for
Regular Status of Employment." Further, the CA rejected the email allegedly sent by Ascutia for being "self-serving,
unreliable and unsubstantial evidence."
"Nowhere could it be read in the contract that private respondent [Asentista] is entitled to the claimed unpaid
commission. The Court cannot give credence to the email allegedly sent by petitioner Ascutia to private respondent
detailing the computation of her claimed unpaid commission.
Granting the petition, it was held that:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated November 28, 2014 and February 27, 2015 of the
National Labor Relations Commission, Eight Division, Cagayan De Oro City is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED,
having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated November 28, 2013 is hereby
REINSTATED.

Asentista Vs JUPP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asentista Vs JUPP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asentista Vs JUPP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

229404, January 24, 2018

Total Amount: P 334,117.20

Less: P85,305.31 (Cash Advances - Asentista's total debts to JUPP)

Total Amount: P248,811.89

Less: P38,733.94 (deposited commission to Asentista's account)

Total Sales Commission due: P 210,077.99

WHEREFORE the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

You might also like