G.R. No. 244629 , July 28, 2020
MARBY FOOD VENTURES CORPORATION, MARIO VALDERRAMA, AND EMELITA VALDERRAMA, PETITIONERS, VS. ROLAND DELA CRUZ, GABRIEL DELA CRUZ, JOSE PAULO ANZURES, EFREN TADEO, BONGBONG SANTOS, MARLON DE RAFAEL, CRIS C. SANTIAGO, ELMER MARANO, ARMANDO RIVERA, AND LOUIE BALMES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Marby Food Ventures Corporation (Marby), engaged in the production and distribution of baked goods, employed the respondents as drivers. The respondents, along with a salesman (Mark Francis Bernardino), filed a complaint against petitioners for underpayment of wage, overtime pay, 13th month pay, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, sick and vacation leave pay under the CBA, illegal deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents alleged they were underpaid their daily wage, overtime, and 13th month pay; did not receive holiday pay, service incentive leave pay for 2013, and CBA-mandated vacation and sick leave; and suffered unauthorized salary deductions labeled as “everything” in their payslips. Petitioners countered that respondents were field personnel not entitled to overtime, holiday, and service incentive leave pay; had received proper minimum wage and 13th month pay; and that deductions were penalties for late deliveries, bad orders, shortages, and cell phone plans, to which respondents consented, and which ceased in September 2016. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC partially reversed, ordering Marby to pay salary and 13th month pay differentials to specific respondents, but affirmed they were field personnel unqualified for other monetary claims. Both parties filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA consolidated the cases, granted the respondents’ petition, and ordered petitioners to pay double the salary differentials, overtime pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay; reimburse illegal deductions; and pay attorney’s fees and interest. The CA ruled respondents were regular employees, not field personnel, as they were bound by a specific delivery timetable and logged time-in and time-out, making their work hours ascertainable.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents are regular employees entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, salary differentials, 13th month pay differentials, reimbursement for illegal deductions, attorney’s fees, and double indemnity.

RULING

The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the CA ruling with modification. Respondents are regular employees, not field personnel, as their duties were not performed away from the principal place of business with hours that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty; they logged time-in and time-out, and their delivery routes and times were specified by the employer. They are therefore entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. The “overtime pay” labeled in payslips cannot be considered a premium to meet minimum wage requirements, entitling respondents to salary differentials. They are also entitled to 13th month pay differentials as the basis for computation was erroneous due to underpayment. The salary deductions were illegal for lack of written employee authorization as required by law. Attorney’s fees were properly awarded as respondents were compelled to litigate. However, the award of double indemnity under R.A. No. 6727 was deleted, as the procedural requirements for its imposition (a compliance order from the Regional Director) were not satisfied. The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for recomputation of monetary awards.