Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Merdicar Fishing Corp Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    This case involved a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against Merdicar Fishing Corp for illegal dismissal and non-payment of service incentive leave for 1990. Agao had worked as a ships quartermaster for Merdicar since 1988. The labor arbiter ordered Agao's reinstatement and payment of back wages. The NLRC dismissed Merdicar's appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that Agao was not "field personnel" as defined in the Labor Code and was entitled to incentive leave pay, as his time working aboard Merdicar's vessels was supervised by the vessel's captain. The petition by Merdicar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Merdicar Fishing Corp Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    34 views2 pages
    This case involved a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against Merdicar Fishing Corp for illegal dismissal and non-payment of service incentive leave for 1990. Agao had worked as a ships quartermaster for Merdicar since 1988. The labor arbiter ordered Agao's reinstatement and payment of back wages. The NLRC dismissed Merdicar's appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that Agao was not "field personnel" as defined in the Labor Code and was entitled to incentive leave pay, as his time working aboard Merdicar's vessels was supervised by the vessel's captain. The petition by Merdicar was dismissed.

    Original Title

    Merdicar Fishing Corp vs NLRC.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against Merdicar Fishing Corp for illegal dismissal and non-payment of service incentive leave for 1990. Agao had worked as a ships quartermaster for Merdicar since 1988. The labor arbiter ordered Agao's reinstatement and payment of back wages. The NLRC dismissed Merdicar's appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that Agao was not "field personnel" as defined in the Labor Code and was entitled to incentive leave pay, as his time working aboard Merdicar's vessels was supervised by the vessel's captain. The petition by Merdicar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Merdicar Fishing Corp Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    This case involved a complaint filed by Fermin Agao, Jr. against Merdicar Fishing Corp for illegal dismissal and non-payment of service incentive leave for 1990. Agao had worked as a ships quartermaster for Merdicar since 1988. The labor arbiter ordered Agao's reinstatement and payment of back wages. The NLRC dismissed Merdicar's appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that Agao was not "field personnel" as defined in the Labor Code and was entitled to incentive leave pay, as his time working aboard Merdicar's vessels was supervised by the vessel's captain. The petition by Merdicar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    • Merdicar Fishing Corp v.

    NLRC, 297 SCRA 440 (1998)

    This case originated from a complaint filed on September 20, 1990 by private respondent Fermin Agao,
    Jr. against petitioner for illegal dismissal, violation of P.D. No. 851, and non-payment of five day-
    service incentive leave for 1990.

    Private respondent had been employed as a bodegero or ships quartermaster on February 12, 1988. He
    complained that he had been constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him
    assignments aboard its boats after he had reported to work on May 28, 1990.1cräläwvirtualibräry

    Labor Arbiter – reinstate and pay 13th month and incentive leave pay

    NLRC – dismissed appeal by Merdicar Fishing.

    ISSUE: whether field personnel or not. Employer argues essentially that since the work of the employee
    Agao is performed away from its principal place of business whose actual hours of work cannot be
    determined, he should be classified as field personnel who has no statutory right to service incentive leave
    pay.

    RULING – petition not meritorious. Respondent is not field personnel. He is not deemed unsupervised.
    As non-field personnel, he is entitled to incentive leave pay.

    Art. 82 of the Labor Code provides:

    ART. 82. Coverage. - The provisions of this Title [Working Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to
    employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but not to government
    employees, field personnel, members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
    support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and workers who are paid by
    results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations.

    ..........

    Field personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from
    the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the
    field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

    In the case of Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) v. Vicar,5 this Court explained the meaning of the
    phrase whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty in
    Art. 82 of the Labor Code, as follows:

    Moreover, the requirement that actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with
    reasonable certainty must be read in conjunction with Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules
    which provides:

    Rule IV Holidays with Pay

    Section 1. Coverage - This rule shall apply to all employees except:

    ..........
    (e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer
    xxx (Italics supplied)

    Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the Court finds that the aforementioned rule did not add
    another element to the Labor Code definition of field personnel. The clause whose time and
    performance is unsupervised by the employer did not amplify but merely interpreted and
    expounded the clause whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable
    certainty. The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Article 82 which defines field
    personnel. Hence, in deciding whether or not an employee’s actual working hours in the field can be
    determined with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to whether or not such employees time and
    performance is constantly supervised by the employer.6cräläwvirtualibräry

    In contrast, in the case at bar, during the entire course of their fishing voyage, fishermen employed by
    petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. Although they perform non-agricultural
    work away from petitioners business offices, the fact remains that throughout the duration of their
    work they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessels patron or
    master as the NLRC correctly held.8cräläwvirtualibräry

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

    You might also like