G.R. No. 217782, June 23, 2021
EDWIN ALACON ATIENZA, PETITIONER, VS. TKC HEAVY INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND LEON TIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin Alacon Atienza was a sales agent for respondent TKC Heavy Industries Corporation, with a monthly salary, allowances, and a 3% commission. His sales primarily came from local government units (LGUs). Atienza alleged that his working relationship with TKC deteriorated in February 2013 when respondents stopped communicating with him. Despite this, he continued working on pending deals with LGUs in Caloocan, Quezon City, and Surigao del Sur. He later learned that TKC had assigned other agents to his transactions, allegedly due to accusations of fraudulent dealings and an unexplained cash advance of P7,000,000.00. Atienza demanded payment of his salaries, allowances, commissions, and reimbursements. When unpaid, he filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for nonpayment of wages, commissions, allowances, reimbursement, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents countered that Atienza had abandoned his job in January 2013 after obtaining a large cash advance, declining sales performance, and expressing an intent to resign. They argued he was not entitled to commissions on the Surigao del Sur deal (as it was outside his assigned area) and the Quezon City deal (as it was not yet consummated), and only to half the commission on the Caloocan deal. They also claimed any commission should be set off against the unliquidated cash advance.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Atienza, awarding unpaid salaries/allowances, full 3% commissions on the three projects, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, finding that Atienza had voluntarily resigned/abandoned his job and was not entitled to the claimed commissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision which dismissed Atienza’s complaint for lack of merit, specifically regarding his claims for unpaid salaries/allowances and commissions on the Caloocan, Quezon City, and Surigao del Sur projects.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the claim for unpaid salaries and allowances: The Court found that Atienza failed to prove he was illegally dismissed. The evidence, including his own admission of stopped communication and the NLRC’s findings, supported the conclusion that he had abandoned his employment or voluntarily severed his relationship with TKC by January 2013. Therefore, he was not entitled to salaries and allowances beyond that point.
2. On the claim for commissions:
* Caloocan Project: The Court found Atienza not entitled to the commission. The evidence showed the sale was consummated through the efforts of respondent Leon Tio and his Manila staff, not Atienza. A certification from the Caloocan City Administrator attested to this. Furthermore, the project was not completed during Atienza’s tenure, as delivery and payment occurred after his separation.
* Quezon City Project: The Court found Atienza not entitled to the commission. The transaction extended beyond his employment, with addendums and amendments made as late as October 2013, and TKC had not yet been paid at the time of filing. The sale was not consummated during his service.
* Surigao del Sur Project: The Court found Atienza not entitled to the full commission. While he assisted in the project, his assigned area was limited to Luzon and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; Surigao del Sur was not part of his territory. He acted as a co-agent with Virgilio Quijada. Applying the Civil Code on agency, in the absence of a solidary agreement, co-agents are jointly responsible and entitled to equal shares of the commission unless otherwise stipulated. The Court held Atienza was entitled to only half of the 3% commission for this project. However, this entitlement was subject to set-off against the P7,000,000.00 cash advance.
3. On the P7,000,000.00 Cash Advance: The Court found the evidence sufficient to prove Atienza received the cash advance. The check, though drawn from a subordinate’s account and issued to another person, was shown to be for Atienza’s benefit based on company practice and the affidavits of TKC’s president and the subordinate. Atienza failed to provide convincing proof of its liquidation. Therefore, any monetary award due to him could be set off against this outstanding obligation.
4. On the award of damages and attorney’s fees: Since Atienza’s basic claims for salaries and commissions largely failed, the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees had no basis and were correctly deleted by the NLRC and CA.
In conclusion, the Court held that Atienza was only entitled to half of the 3% commission for the Surigao del Sur project, but this amount was subject to compensation or set-off against the established P7,000,000.00 cash advance he had not liquidated. His other claims were without merit.