G.R. No. 162813 ; February 12, 2007
FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. and/or ALEXANDER UY, Petitioners, vs. JIMMY LEBATIQUE and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. hired respondent Jimmy Lebatique as a truck driver on March 4, 1996. On January 24, 2000, after Lebatique complained about unpaid overtime work, he was suspended by management. He reported for work the next day but was barred from entering the company premises. He then sought DOLE assistance regarding his overtime pay claim. On January 29, 2000, after being summoned back, petitioner Alexander Uy confronted him about the claim and, following a discussion with another manager, terminated his employment, telling him to look for another job.
Lebatique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, overtime pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay. The NLRC reversed, holding that Lebatique was merely suspended and was a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The principal issues are: (1) Whether respondent Jimmy Lebatique was illegally dismissed; and (2) Whether he is a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals with modification. On the first issue, the Court ruled that illegal dismissal was established. The act of suspension on January 24, 2000, followed by being barred from work and the subsequent termination conversation on January 29, 2000, where Alexander Uy told Lebatique to find another job, constituted a clear dismissal. The employer failed to prove a valid or authorized cause for termination and did not observe the requisite procedural due process. The claim of mere suspension was untenable given these subsequent acts of dismissal.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Lebatique was not a field personnel. The term “field personnel” refers to those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business and whose hours of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. As a delivery truck driver, Lebatique’s working hours were not entirely free from control; his time spent on deliveries was still subject to determination and was not solely spent outside company premises. Therefore, he was entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay. However, the Court modified the award, noting that claims for overtime pay are subject to a three-year prescriptive period. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter to recompute the exact overtime pay due, based on complete records to be submitted by the employer, covering only the three years preceding the filing of the complaint.