Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

David Vs Macasio

This case involves a complaint filed by John G. Macasio against Ariel L. David's hog dealing business for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave. The Labor Arbiter concluded Macasio was not entitled to these benefits as he worked on a task basis. However, the Court of Appeals found Macasio was entitled to the monetary claims based on previous doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled that while Macasio was entitled to holiday pay and service incentive leave as he did not qualify as a field personnel, he was not entitled to 13th month pay as the law specifically exempts those paid on a task basis without requiring they also be field personnel.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

David Vs Macasio

This case involves a complaint filed by John G. Macasio against Ariel L. David's hog dealing business for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave. The Labor Arbiter concluded Macasio was not entitled to these benefits as he worked on a task basis. However, the Court of Appeals found Macasio was entitled to the monetary claims based on previous doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled that while Macasio was entitled to holiday pay and service incentive leave as he did not qualify as a field personnel, he was not entitled to 13th month pay as the law specifically exempts those paid on a task basis without requiring they also be field personnel.

Uploaded by

Camille Grande
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

195466 July 2, 2014

ARIEL L. DAVID, doing business under the name and style "YIELS HOG DEALER," Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN G. MACASIO, Respondent.

Facts:

In January 2009, Macasio filed before the LA a complaint against petitioner Ariel L. David, doing business
under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer,” for non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay and 13th
month pay. He also claimed payment for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Macasio
also claimed payment for service incentive leave (SIL) David claimed that he started his hog dealer
business in 2005 and that he only has ten employees. The LA concluded that as Macasio was engaged on
“pakyaw” or task basis, he is not entitled to overtime, holiday, SIL and 13th month pay.The NLRC
affirmed the LA decision, thus this case reach the CA which says that Macasio is entitled to his monetary
claims following the doctrine laid down in Serrano v. Severino Santos Transit.The CA explained that as a
task basis employee, Macasio is excluded from the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay only if
he is likewise a “field personnel.”Thus this case reached the SC.

Issue:

Whether or not Macasio is entitled of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and payment for
service incentive leave

Ruling:

Yes, in so far as the Holiday and SIL pay is concern.

To determine whether workers engaged on “pakyaw” ortask basis” is entitled to holiday and SIL pay, the
presence (or absence) of employer supervision as regards the worker’s time and performance is
the key: if the worker is simply engaged on pakyaw or task basis, then the general rule is that he is
entitled to a holiday pay and SIL pay unless exempted from the exceptions specifically provided under
Article 94 (holiday pay) and Article 95 (SIL pay) of the Labor Code. However, if the worker engaged on
pakyaw or task basis also falls within the meaning of “field personnel” under the law, then he is not
entitled to these monetary benefits. CA that Macasio does not fall under the definition of “field
personnel.” The CA’s finding in this regard is supported by the established facts of this case: first,
Macasio regularly performed his duties at David’s principal place of business; second, his actual hours of
work could be determined with reasonable certainty; and, third, David supervised his time and
performance of duties. Since Macasio cannot be considered a “field personnel,” then he is not
exempted from the grant of holiday, SIL pay even as he was engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis.

However, the governing law on 13th month pay is PD No. 851. As with holiday and SIL pay, 13th month
pay benefits generally cover all employees; an employee must be one of those expressly enumerated to
be exempted. Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851 enumerates the
exemptions from the coverage of 13th month pay benefits. Under Section 3(e), “employers of those
who are paid on task basis, and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a
specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof are exempted. Note that
unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing PD No. 851exempts employees "paid on task basis" without any reference to "field
personnel." This could only mean that insofar as payment of the 13th month pay is concerned, the law
did not intend to qualify the exemption from its coverage with the requirement that the task worker be
a "field personnel" at the same time. Thus Macasio is not entitled to 13th month pay.

You might also like