379 David V Macasio

Case: 379 David v Macasio…again
Topic: Voluntary Arbitration
DOCTRINE:
Factual-issue -Bar rule
In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA’s decision rendered under a Rule 65
proceeding, this Court’s power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any
perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision
Moreover, the Court’s power in a Rule 45 petition limits us to a review of questions of law
raised against the assailed CA decision
Petitioner Respondents
Ariel L. David ,doing business under the JOHN G. MACASIO

name and style "YIELS HOG DEALER,"
ACTION SEQUENCE: La- dismissed the case, Commission affirmed, CA held that
Macasio was entitled to SIL, 13th month pay and Holiday Pay
FACTS
Macasio filed a complaint against David for the non-payment of:
overtime pay
holiday pay
13th month pay
moral damages
Exemplary damages
Attorney’s fees
SIL
He alleges that he had been working as a butcher for David for 10 years and that he
exercised effective control and supervision over his work making him a regular worker.
David in his defense stated that he hired Macasio as a butcher or chopper on a “pakyaw” or
task basis, making him not entitled to the fees as per the IRR of the labor code.
the LA dismissed the complaint for a lack of merit. The nature of David’s business as a hog
dealer supports the pakyaw or task basis arrangement. 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 Commission affirmed the LA ruling and the MR was also denied which led to a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA
the CA agreed that the Macasio was a task basis employee but found that the was entitled to
his monetary clams based on the Serrano v Severino Santos Transit Doctrine where a task
basis employee is excluded to the coverage of holiday, SIL and 13th month pay if he was a
field personnel. Here he was not a field personnel because he was working at the place of
business
The CA held that he was entitled to holiday pay ,13th month pay and, SIL only
David argues that factual findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC, attain finality
especially when, as in this case, they are supported by substantial evidence. Hence,
David posits that the CA erred in reversing the labor tribunals’ findings and granting
the prayed monetary claims.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent is entitled to Holiday pay, 13th month pay and SIL
RULING:
Yes, he is entitled to SIL and Holiday pay but not entitled to 13th month pay
the Montoya Ruling and the Factual-issue -Bar rule

In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA’s decision rendered under a Rule 65
proceeding, this Court’s power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any
perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision.
This is in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors, which we undertake in an original
certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision, we examine the CA
decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in
the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits
of the case was correct.
In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a
review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it
Moreover, the Court’s power in a Rule 45 petition limits us to a review of questions of law
raised against the assailed CA decision
The Autobus ruling was in turn the basis of Serrano v. Santos Transit which the CA cited
in support of granting Macasio’s petition.
In Serrano, the Court, applying the rule on ejusdem generis declared that "employees engaged
on task or contract basis xxx are not automatically exempted from the grant of service
incentive leave, unless, they fall under the classification of field personnel." The Court
explained that the phrase "including those who are engaged on task or contract basis, purely
commission basis" found in Section 1(d), Rule V of Book III of the IRR should not be
understood as a separate classification of employees to which SIL shall not be granted. Rather,
as with its preceding phrase - "other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the
employer" - the phrase "including those who are engaged on task or contract basis" serves to
amplify the interpretation of the Labor Code definition of "field personnel" as those "whose
actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty."
Macasio does not fall under the classification of "field personnel"
Based on the definition of field personnel under Article 82, we agree with the 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.
Entitlement to holiday pay and SIL-YES

General rule: Pakyaw or task basis= entitled
Pakyaw task basis + Field personnel = Not entitled
the Serrano ruling speaks only of SIL pay. the phrase "employees engaged on task or contract
basis "found in the IRR on both SIL pay and holiday pay should be read together with the
exemption of "field personnel."
In short, in determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or task 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
Article95 (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
Entitlement to 13th month pay-NO
unlike the IRR of the Labor Code on holiday and SIL pay, Section 3(e) of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing PD No. 851 exempts 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.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby

PARTIALLY GRANT the petition insofar as the payment of 13th month pay to respondent is
concerned. In all other aspects, we AFFIRM the decision dated November 22, 2010 and the
resolution dated January 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 116003.
NOTES: there is no mention about voluntary arbitration. Please take note of the
Factual-issue -Bar rule as mentioned which could be the relevant portion

379 David V Macasio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

379 David V Macasio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

379 David V Macasio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 379 David v Macasio…again

Topic: Voluntary Arbitration

Factual-issue -Bar rule

Ariel L. David ,doing business under the JOHN G. MACASIO

the Montoya Ruling and the Factual-issue -Bar rule

Entitlement to holiday pay and SIL-YES

In short, in determining whether workers engaged on "pakyaw" or task basis" is entitled to

Entitlement to 13th month pay-NO

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby

You might also like