GR 48799; (August, 1942) (Digest)

G.R. No. 48799 and 48800; August 26, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE A. BARRETTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Jose A. Barretto, was prosecuted under provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and the National Internal Revenue Code related to commercial brokers. The trial court found that the accused “had to work during office hours at the Luneta Motor Company in the capacity of an employee and whose obligation it was to sell automobiles . . . for the said entity, Luneta Motor Company, with a salary . . . and receiving in addition a commission . . . .” He also received a bonus for special services and a gasoline allowance. Furthermore, the defendant sold cars for only one automobile dealer, the Luneta Motor Company.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant is a “salaried employee” or a “bona fide employee” and not a commercial broker under the relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and the National Internal Revenue Code.

RULING

The defendant is properly considered a “salaried employee” or a “bona fide employee” within the purview of the law and not a commercial broker. The receipt of a commission in addition to a salary is a well-known business practice to incentivize efficient salesmanship and does not, by itself, make one a commercial broker. The additional benefits of a bonus and gasoline allowance are indicative of an employee relationship, as an independent commercial broker does not ordinarily receive such privileges. The fact that he sold cars exclusively for the Luneta Motor Company is strong evidence of his employee status. The trial court’s finding that he worked regular office hours at the employer’s establishment and received compensation as a salary and commission confirms he was a regular employee.