FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 213488, November 07, 2016
TOYOTA PASIG, INC., Petitioner, v. VILMA S. DE PERALTA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Resolutions dated April 14, 20142 and July 24, 20143 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 131495 and 131558, upholding the Decision4 dated May 15, 2013 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in LAC No. 03-000954-13 NCR-03-03689-12 which, inter alia, found petitioner Toyota Pasig, Inc. (petitioner) liable to respondent Vilma S. De Peralta (respondent) in the amount of P617,248.08 representing the latter's unpaid commissions, tax rebate for achieved monthly targets, salary deductions, unpaid salary for the month of January 2012, and success share/profit sharing for the year 2011.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ART. 97. Definitions. - As used in this Title:cralawlawlibraryThe aforesaid provision explicitly includes commissions as part of wages. In Iran v. NLRC,38 the Court thoroughly explained the wisdom behind such inclusion as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
(f) "Wage" paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value, as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, of board, lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. "Fair and reasonable value" shall not include any profit to the employer, or to any person affiliated with the employer. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
This definition explicitly includes commissions as part of wages. While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire employees to put a little more industry on the jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered. In fact, commissions have been defined as the recompense, compensation or reward of an agent, salesman, executor, trustee, receiver, factor, broker or bailee, when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that commissions are part of a salesman's wage or salary.In this case, respondent's monetary claims, such as commissions, tax rebates for achieved monthly targets, and success share/profit sharing, are given to her as incentives or forms of encouragement in order for her to put extra effort in performing her duties as an ISE. Clearly, such claims fall within the ambit of the general term "commissions" which in turn, fall within the definition of wages pursuant to prevailing law and jurisprudence. Thus, respondent's allegation of nonpayment of such monetary benefits places the burden on the employer, i.e., petitioner, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that it paid said benefits and that the employee, i.e., respondent, actually received such payment or that the employee was not entitled thereto.40 The Court's pronouncement in Heirs of Ridad v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation41 is instructive on this matter, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
The NLRC asserts that the inclusion of commissions in the computation of wages would negate the practice of granting commissions only after an employee has earned the minimum wage or over. While such a practice does exist, the universality and prevalence of such a practice is questionable at best. In truth, this Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that some salesmen do not receive any basic salary but depend entirely on commissions and allowances or commissions alone, although an employer-employee relationship exists. Undoubtedly, this salary structure is intended for the benefit of the corporation establishing such, on the apparent assumption that thereby its salesmen would be moved to greater enterprise and diligence and close more sales in the expectation of increasing their sales commissions. This, however, does not detract from the character of such commissions as part of the salary or wage paid to each of its salesmen for rendering services to the corporation.39 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Well-settled is the rule that once the employee has set out with particularity in his complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that the employer failed to pay him, it becomes the employer's burden to prove that it has paid these money claims. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the employees must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employees to prove non-payment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of the worker have been paid - are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.42 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)In this case, petitioner simply dismissed respondent's claims for being purely self-serving and unfounded, without even presenting any tinge of proof showing that respondent was already paid of such benefits or that she was not entitled thereto. In fact, during the proceedings before the LA, petitioner was even given the opportunity to submit pertinent company records to rebut respondent's claims but opted not to do so, thus, constraining the LA to direct respondent to submit her own computations.43 It is well-settled that the failure of employers to submit the necessary documents that are in their possession gives rise to the presumption that the presentation thereof is prejudicial to its cause.44
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-34.
2 Id. at 39-43. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
3 Id. at 44-45.
4 Id. at 65-81. Penned by Commissioner Nieves E. Vivar-De Castro with Presiding Commissioner Joseph Gerard E. Mabilog and Commissioner Isabel G. Panganiban-Ortiguerra concurring.
5 Not attached to the rollo.
6Rollo, p. 50.
7 Id. at 16 and 55.
8 Id. at 51 and 66.
9 Id. at 50, 52, and 66.
10 See id. at 53 and 67.
11 Id. at 55 and 68.
12 Id. at 57, 58-59, and 66.
13 Id. at 57 and 68.
14 Id. at 68.
15 Id. at 60.
16 Id. at 62-63 and 68-69.
17 Id. at 50-63. Penned by Labor Arbiter Lilia S. Savari.
18 Id. at 63.
19 Id. at 61.
20 Id. at 61-62.
21 Id. at 62-63.
22 Not attached to the rollo.
23Rollo, pp. 65-81.
24 Id. at 80.
25 See id. at 75-77.
26 Id. at 80.
27 Id.at77-79.
28 Not attached to the rollo.
29Rollo, pp. 39-40.
30 Id. at 39-43.
31 Id. at 40-42.
32 Not attached to the rollo.
33Rollo, pp. 44-45.
34 Entitled "Vilma S. De Peralta v. NLRC."
35 See First Division Minute Resolution dated November 24, 2014.
36 Date of Finality was October 13, 2015.
37Rollo, pp. 24-32.
38 352 Phil. 261 (1998). See also Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 747, 752-755; Songco v. NLRC, 262 Phil. 667, 672-676 (1990).
39 Id. at 270, citations omitted.
40 See JARL Construction v. Atencio, 692 Phil. 256, 271 (2012).
41 703 Phil. 531 (2013).
42 Id. at 538, citations omitted.
43 See rollo, pp. 42 and 77-79.
44Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. v. Margallo, 611 Phil. 612, 629 (2009), citing National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. v. NLRC, 353 Phil. 551, 558 (1998).
45 See rollo, p. 79.