Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 166 views

    Netlink Computer, Inc. vs. Eric Delmo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Cabana
    1) Eric Delmo was hired as an account manager by Netlink Computer, Inc. to generate sales and was owed commissions of ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30. 2) Netlink refused to fully pay Delmo and issued memoranda faulting him in an attempt to force his resignation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while there was no written contract specifying payment in US dollars, Netlink's practice was to pay commissions in US dollars. Therefore, Delmo was entitled to receive payment of his commissions in US dollars or their equivalent at the time of payment, not the time of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Netlink Computer, Inc. vs. Eric Delmo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Cabana
    166 views2 pages
    1) Eric Delmo was hired as an account manager by Netlink Computer, Inc. to generate sales and was owed commissions of ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30. 2) Netlink refused to fully pay Delmo and issued memoranda faulting him in an attempt to force his resignation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while there was no written contract specifying payment in US dollars, Netlink's practice was to pay commissions in US dollars. Therefore, Delmo was entitled to receive payment of his commissions in US dollars or their equivalent at the time of payment, not the time of sale.

    Original Title

    4. Netlink Computer, Inc. vs. Eric Delmo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Eric Delmo was hired as an account manager by Netlink Computer, Inc. to generate sales and was owed commissions of ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30. 2) Netlink refused to fully pay Delmo and issued memoranda faulting him in an attempt to force his resignation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while there was no written contract specifying payment in US dollars, Netlink's practice was to pay commissions in US dollars. Therefore, Delmo was entitled to receive payment of his commissions in US dollars or their equivalent at the time of payment, not the time of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Netlink Computer, Inc. vs. Eric Delmo

    Uploaded by

    Ian Cabana
    1) Eric Delmo was hired as an account manager by Netlink Computer, Inc. to generate sales and was owed commissions of ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30. 2) Netlink refused to fully pay Delmo and issued memoranda faulting him in an attempt to force his resignation. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while there was no written contract specifying payment in US dollars, Netlink's practice was to pay commissions in US dollars. Therefore, Delmo was entitled to receive payment of his commissions in US dollars or their equivalent at the time of payment, not the time of sale.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabana, Adrian C.

    Doctrine : The rate of exchange at the time of payment, not the rate of exchange
    at the time of the sales, controls.

    Case Title : Netlink Computer, Inc. vs. Eric Delmo


    GR. No. 160827
    June 18, 2014
    BERSAMIN, J.

    Facts

    Petitioner Corporation hired Eric S. Delmo (Delmo) as account manager, its tasked is to canvass
    and source clients and convince them to purchase the products and services of Netlink. He was able to
    generate sales worth ₱35,000,000.00, more or less, from which he earned commissions amounting to
    ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30.

    He then requested payment of his commissions, but Netlink refused and only gave him partial
    cash advances chargeable to his commissions. Later on, Netlink began to nitpick and fault find, like
    stressing his supposed absences and tardiness.

    In order to force him to resign, Netlink issued several memoranda detailing his supposed
    infractions of the company’s attendance policy. Despite the memoranda, Delmo continued to generate
    huge sales for Netlink. 

    On November 28, 1996, Delmo was shocked when he was refused entry into the company premises by
    the security guard pursuant to a memorandum to that effect. His personal belongings were still inside
    the company premises and he sought their return to him. This incident prompted Delmo to file a
    complaint for illegal dismissal. 

    The Labor Arbiter ruled against Netlink and in favor of Delmo. On appeal, the National Labor Relations
    Commission (NLRC) modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter by setting aside the backwages and
    reinstatement decreed by the Labor Arbiter due to the existence of valid and just causes for the
    termination of Delmo’s employment.

    The NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration, after which Netlink filed a petition for certiorari in the
    CA. Hence, this appeal.

    Issue

    Whether or not the payment of the commissions should be in US dollars

    Ruling

    Yes, the payment of the commissions should be in US dollars. As a general rule, all obligations
    shall be paid in Philippine currency. However, the contracting parties may stipulate that foreign
    currencies may be used for settling obligations.

    There was no written contract between Netlink and Delmo stipulating that the latter’s commissions
    would be paid in US dollars. The absence of the contractual stipulation
    Notwithstanding, Netlink was still liable to pay Delmo in US dollars because the practice of paying its
    sales agents in US dollars

    With the payment of US dollar commissions having ripened into a company practice, there is no way
    that the commissions due to Delmo were to be paid in US dollars or their equivalent in Philippine
    currency determined at the time of the sales.

    WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated
    on May 9, 2003; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

    You might also like