GR 211141; (June, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211141 June 29, 2016
HILARIO DASCO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC./CENTURION SOLANO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, employed as bus drivers and conductors by respondent Philtranco Service Enterprises Inc. (PSEI) from 2006 to 2010, filed a complaint for regularization, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of service incentive leave (SIL) and overtime pay. They contended they were not field personnel because their working hours were controlled, with specific routes and schedules monitored by the company. PSEI argued petitioners were seasonal field personnel paid per kilometer, whose time could not be determined with certainty, thus not entitled to overtime and SIL pay.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the monetary claims, classifying petitioners as field personnel. The NLRC reversed, awarding wage differentials, finding petitioners were not field personnel due to fixed routes and schedules. The CA reinstated the LA’s decision, ruling petitioners were unsupervised field workers. During CA proceedings, a writ of execution on the NLRC decision led to the levy and auction of PSEI properties.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners, as bus drivers and conductors, are considered field personnel exempt from entitlement to overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the NLRC decision. The Court held that petitioners are not field personnel. The legal test for field personnel is whether they regularly perform their duties away from the employer’s principal place of business and whose hours of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Here, petitioners ply specific, predetermined routes with fixed travel times and schedules dictated by the company’s bus timetables. Their work is fundamentally time-bound, as the transportation of passengers inherently requires adherence to a schedule. The nature of their work allows the employer to determine with reasonable certainty the number of hours worked, as travel time is measurable by distance and the company’s operational requirements.
The fact that they perform their duties outside the company garage does not automatically make them field personnel. The element of uncontrolled time is absent. The Court emphasized that the employer’s inability to exercise actual, physical supervision every moment does not equate to an inability to determine work hours. Consequently, as their working hours are ascertainable, petitioners are entitled to the benefits of regular employees, including overtime pay and service incentive leave pay under the Labor Code. The NLRC’s factual findings, supported by evidence and consistent with applicable jurisprudence, were thus upheld.