Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Autobus Vs Bautista

    Uploaded by

    Joel G. Ayon
    Antonio Bautista was employed as a driver-conductor for Autobus Transport Systems, Inc. and paid on a commission basis. He was involved in an accident where he rear-ended another bus. Bautista claimed he was not allowed to rest for 24 hours before being made to drive again. He was terminated after not paying 30% of repair costs. While the labor arbiter dismissed his illegal dismissal complaint, they ordered payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave. The NLRC upheld the service incentive leave but removed the 13th month pay ruling. The court affirmed that Bautista was entitled to service incentive leave because as a driver he was under constant supervision and not considered a field employee.

    Copyright:

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

    Autobus Vs Bautista

    Uploaded by

    Joel G. Ayon
    73 views1 page
    Antonio Bautista was employed as a driver-conductor for Autobus Transport Systems, Inc. and paid on a commission basis. He was involved in an accident where he rear-ended another bus. Bautista claimed he was not allowed to rest for 24 hours before being made to drive again. He was terminated after not paying 30% of repair costs. While the labor arbiter dismissed his illegal dismissal complaint, they ordered payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave. The NLRC upheld the service incentive leave but removed the 13th month pay ruling. The court affirmed that Bautista was entitled to service incentive leave because as a driver he was under constant supervision and not considered a field employee.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    1. Autobus vs Bautista

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Antonio Bautista was employed as a driver-conductor for Autobus Transport Systems, Inc. and paid on a commission basis. He was involved in an accident where he rear-ended another bus. Bautista claimed he was not allowed to rest for 24 hours before being made to drive again. He was terminated after not paying 30% of repair costs. While the labor arbiter dismissed his illegal dismissal complaint, they ordered payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave. The NLRC upheld the service incentive leave but removed the 13th month pay ruling. The court affirmed that Bautista was entitled to service incentive leave because as a driver he was under constant supervision and not considered a field employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    Autobus Vs Bautista

    Uploaded by

    Joel G. Ayon
    Antonio Bautista was employed as a driver-conductor for Autobus Transport Systems, Inc. and paid on a commission basis. He was involved in an accident where he rear-ended another bus. Bautista claimed he was not allowed to rest for 24 hours before being made to drive again. He was terminated after not paying 30% of repair costs. While the labor arbiter dismissed his illegal dismissal complaint, they ordered payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave. The NLRC upheld the service incentive leave but removed the 13th month pay ruling. The court affirmed that Bautista was entitled to service incentive leave because as a driver he was under constant supervision and not considered a field employee.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1

    AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. v. ANTONIO BAUTISTA


    G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005
    FACTS: Antonio Bautista has been employed by Autobus, as driver-conductor and was paid on
    commission basis, seven percent (7%) of the total gross income per travel, on a twice a month basis.
    One day, while Bautista was driving Autobus No. 114, he accidentally bumped the rear portion of
    Autobus No. 124. Bautista averred that the accident happened because he was compelled by the
    management to go back to Roxas, Isabela, although he had not slept for almost 24 hours, as he had
    just arrived in Manila from Roxas, Isabela. He further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he
    fully paid 30% of the cost of repair of the damaged buses and that his pleas for reconsideration were
    ignored by management. After a month, management sent him a letter of termination. Thus, he
    instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and
    service incentive leave pay. Autobus maintained that Bautista’s employment was replete with
    offenses. Furthermore, Autobus avers that in the exercise of its management prerogative, Bautista's
    employment was terminated only after the latter was provided with an opportunity to explain.

    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered Autobus to pay his 13th month pay from the
    date of his hiring to the date of his dismissal, as well as his service incentive leave pay for all the
    years he had been in service. Autobus appealed to the NLRC which deleted the award of 13 th month
    pay based on the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851, particularly Sec.
    3 which exempts employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis.
    Records showed that Bautista, in his position paper, admitted that he was paid on a commission
    basis. The award of service incentive leave pay was maintained. Thus, Autobus sought a
    reconsideration which was denied by NLRC. CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is entitled to service incentive leave.

    HELD: The contention of Autobus that Bautista is not entitled to the grant of service incentive leave
    just because he was paid on purely commission basis is misplaced. What must be ascertained in
    order to resolve the issue of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave to respondent is whether
    or not he is a field personnel.

    Along the routes that are plied by these bus companies, there are its inspectors assigned at strategic
    places who board the bus and inspect the passengers, the punched tickets, and the conductor’s
    reports. There is also the mandatory once-a-week car barn or shop day, where the bus is regularly
    checked as to its mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic aspects, whether or not there are problems
    thereon as reported by the driver and/or conductor. They too, must be at a specific place at a
    specified time, as they generally observe prompt departure and arrival from their point of origin to
    their point of destination. In each and every depot, there is always the Dispatcher whose function is
    precisely to see to it that the bus and its crew leave the premises at specific times and arrive at the
    estimated proper time. These, are present in the case at bar. The driver, the complainant herein,
    was therefore under constant supervision while in the performance of this work. He cannot be
    considered a field personnel.

    Therefore, Bautista is not a field personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually
    necessary and desirable to the usual trade of business of Autobus. Accordingly, Bautista is entitled
    to the grant of service incentive leave.

    You might also like