Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Songco V NLRC (1990) : DOCTRINE: The Nature of The Work of A Salesman and The Reason For Such

    Uploaded by

    Maria Alyssa Rodriguez
    This case involved three petitioners, Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel, who were salesmen that received both a monthly salary and commissions from their employer, F.E. Zuellig. When the petitioners were terminated, the employer did not include their earned commissions in calculating their separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that commissions must be included in calculating separation pay. Commissions are considered part of an employee's wage or salary based on the Labor Code's definition of wage and the nature of commission-based compensation for salespersons. Including commissions results in a more favorable outcome for labor.

    Copyright:

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

    Songco V NLRC (1990) : DOCTRINE: The Nature of The Work of A Salesman and The Reason For Such

    Uploaded by

    Maria Alyssa Rodriguez
    33 views2 pages
    This case involved three petitioners, Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel, who were salesmen that received both a monthly salary and commissions from their employer, F.E. Zuellig. When the petitioners were terminated, the employer did not include their earned commissions in calculating their separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that commissions must be included in calculating separation pay. Commissions are considered part of an employee's wage or salary based on the Labor Code's definition of wage and the nature of commission-based compensation for salespersons. Including commissions results in a more favorable outcome for labor.

    Original Description:

    Digest for Labor Law

    Original Title

    SongcovNLRC

    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 three petitioners, Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel, who were salesmen that received both a monthly salary and commissions from their employer, F.E. Zuellig. When the petitioners were terminated, the employer did not include their earned commissions in calculating their separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that commissions must be included in calculating separation pay. Commissions are considered part of an employee's wage or salary based on the Labor Code's definition of wage and the nature of commission-based compensation for salespersons. Including commissions results in a more favorable outcome for labor.

    Copyright:

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

    Songco V NLRC (1990) : DOCTRINE: The Nature of The Work of A Salesman and The Reason For Such

    Uploaded by

    Maria Alyssa Rodriguez
    This case involved three petitioners, Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel, who were salesmen that received both a monthly salary and commissions from their employer, F.E. Zuellig. When the petitioners were terminated, the employer did not include their earned commissions in calculating their separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that commissions must be included in calculating separation pay. Commissions are considered part of an employee's wage or salary based on the Labor Code's definition of wage and the nature of commission-based compensation for salespersons. Including commissions results in a more favorable outcome for labor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Digest Author: Alyssa Rodriguez

    Songco v NLRC (1990)


    Petitioner: JOSE SONGCO, ROMEO CIPRES, and AMANCIO MANUEL
    Respondent: NLRC, LA, & F.E. ZUELLIG
    Ponencia: Medialdea, J.

    DOCTRINE: The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such
    type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that
    commission are part of petitioners' wage or salary.
    FACTS:
    1. Jose Songco, Romeo Cipres, and Amancio Manuel (petitioners),who
    were in the sales force of F. E. Zuellig (respondent) received monthly
    salaries of at least P400 (YES FOUR HUNDRED). In addition, they
    received commissions for every sale they made.
    2. Respondent filed an application with DOLE seeking clearance to
    terminate the services of petitioners allegedly on the ground of
    retrenchment due to financial losses.

    3. Of course, petitioners opposed this stating that Zuellig is not suffering


    from any losses and that they are being dismissed because of their
    membership in the union.

    4. At the last hearing of the case, however, petitioners manifested that they
    are no longer contesting their dismissal. The sole issue to be resolved is
    the basis of the separation pay due to petitioners (w/n commissions &
    allowances should be included)

    5. LA ruled that commissions & allowances should not be included. NLRC


    upheld. Hence, this petition.
    SIDE NOTE: Petitioner Romeo Cipres filed a verified "Notice of Voluntary Abandonment and
    Withdrawal of Petition hence, the SC resolved to dismiss the petition as to him.

    ISSUES: W/N earned sales commissions and allowances should be included


    in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of their
    separation pay.
    PROVISION: Article 97(f) & Article 284 of the Labor Code, and Sections 9(b)
    and 10 of the Implementing Rules
    RULING + RATIO: YES.
    Insofar as the issue of whether or not allowances should be included
    in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of
    their separation pay is concerned, this has been settled in the case
    of Santos v. NLRC, et al, where We ruled that "in the computation of
    backwages and separation pay, account must be taken not only of
    the basic salary of petitioner but also of her transportation and
    emergency living allowances."

    Article 97(f) by itself is explicit that commission is included in the


    definition of the term "wage".
    (More or less the argument of the petitioner and the ratiocination of the
    LA went like this): The definition of 'wage' provided in Article 97 of the
    Code can be correctly be (sic) stated as a general definition. It is 'wage '
    in its generic sense XXX Upon the other hand, the provisions of Section
    10, Rule 1, Book VI of the implementing rules in conjunction with Articles
    273 and 274 (sic) of the Code specifically states that the basis of the
    termination pay due to one who is sought to be legally separated
    from the service is 'his latest salary rates. XXX Each particular
    benefit provided in the Code and other Decrees on Labor has its own
    pecularities and nuances and should be interpreted in that light XXX
    settled is the rule that in matters of conflict between the general
    provision of law and that of a particular- or specific provision, the latter
    should prevail.
    We rule otherwise. Inasmuch as the words "wages", "pay" and "salary"
    have the same meaning, and commission is included in the definition of
    "wage", the logical conclusion, therefore, is, in the computation of the
    separation pay of petitioners, their salary base should include also their
    earned sales commissions.
    Commission is the recompense, compensation or reward of an agent,
    salesman, executor, trustees, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the
    same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or
    on the profit to the principal.
    The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of
    remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that commission
    are part of petitioners' wage or salary. We take judicial notice of the fact
    that some salesman do not received any basic salary but depend on
    commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an
    employer-employee relationship exists. Bearing in mind the preceeding
    dicussions, if we adopt the opposite view that commissions, do not form
    part of wage or salary, then, in effect, We will be saying that this kind of
    salesmen do not receive any salary and therefore, not entitled to
    separation pay in the event of discharge from employment. Will this not
    be absurd? This narrow interpretation is not in accord with the liberal
    spirit of our labor laws.
    Moreover, the commissions in the present case were earned by actual
    market transactions attributable to petitioners, hence these should be
    included in their separation pay.
    The final consideration is that as per Article 4, all doubts in the
    implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code
    including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in
    favor of labor"

    DISPOSITION: Granted.

    You might also like