Antonio W. Iran v. NLRC: (G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)

Antonio W. Iran v.
NLRC
(G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)
III. Labor Standards

A Wages
4. Commissions
PRINCIPLE:
Commissions are included in determining compliance with the minimum wage requirement.
FACTS:
Petitioner Antonio Iran is engaged in softdrinks merchandising and distribution in

Mandaue City, Cebu, employing truck drivers who double as salesmen, truck helpers, and
non-field personnel in pursuit thereof.
Petitioner hired private respondents Godofredo Petralba, Moreno Cadalso, Celso Labiaga
and Fernando Colina as drivers/salesmen while private respondents Pepito Tecson,
Apolinario Gimena, Jesus Bandilao, Edwin Martin and Diosdado Gonzalgo were hired as
truck helpers.
Drivers/salesmen drove petitioners delivery trucks and promoted, sold and delivered
softdrinks to various outlets in Mandaue City. The truck helpers assisted in the delivery of
softdrinks to the different outlets covered by the driver/salesmen.
As part of their compensation, the driver/salesmen and truck helpers of petitioner

received commissions per case of softdrinks sold at the following rates:
SALESMEN:
Ten Centavos (P0.10) per case of Regular softdrinks.
Twelve Centavos (P0.12) per case of Family Size softdrinks.
TRUCK HELPERS:
Eight Centavos (P0.08) per case of Regular softdrinks.
Ten Centavos (P0.10) per case of Family Size softdrinks.
Sometime in June 1991, petitioner, while conducting an audit of his operations,

discovered cash shortages and irregularities allegedly committed by private
respondents. Pending the investigation of irregularities and settlement of the cash
shortages, petitioner required private respondents to report for work everyday. They
were not allowed, however, to go on their respective routes. A few days thereafter,
despite aforesaid order, private respondents stopped reporting for work, prompting
petitioner to conclude that the former had abandoned their employment. Consequently,
petitioner terminated their services. He also filed on November 7, 1991, a complaint
for estafa against private respondents.
On the other hand, private respondents filed complaints against petitioner for illegal
dismissal, illegal deduction, underpayment of wages, premium pay for holiday and rest
day, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, allowances, separation pay,
recovery of cash bond, damages and attorneys fees.
The labor arbiter found that petitioner had validly terminated private respondents, there
being just cause for the latters dismissal. Nevertheless, he also ruled that petitioner had
not complied with minimum wage requirements in compensating private respondents,
and had failed to pay private respondents their 13 th month pay.
The NLRC, in its decision of December 21, 1994, affirmed the validity of private
respondents dismissal, but found that said dismissal did not comply with the procedural
requirements for dismissing employees. Furthermore, it corrected the labor arbiters
award of wage differentials to Jesus Bandilao.
ISSUE:
Whether or not commissions are included in determining compliance with the minimum
wage requirement.
RULING:
Yes. The petition is impressed with merit.
Article 97(f) of the Labor Code defines wage as follows:

Art. 97(f) Wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or 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, of board, lodging, or other facilities
customarily furnished by the employer to the employee.
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 salesmans wage or salary.
Thus, the commissions earned by private respondents in selling softdrinks

constitute part of the compensation or remuneration paid to drivers/salesmen
and truck helpers for serving as such, and hence, must be considered part of the
wages paid them.
Likewise, there is no law mandating that commissions be paid only after the minimum
wage has been paid to the employee. Verily, the establishment of a minimum wage
only sets a floor below which an employees remuneration cannot fall, not that
commissions are excluded from wages in determining compliance with the
minimum wage law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the NLRC dated July 31, 1995,
insofar as it excludes the commissions received by private respondents in the
determination of petitioners compliance with the minimum wage law, as well as its
exclusion of the particular amounts received by private respondents as part of their
13th month pay is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. This case is REMANDED to the Labor
Arbiter for a recomputation of the alleged deficiencies. For non-observance of procedural
due process in effecting the dismissal of private respondents, said decision
is MODIFIED by increasing the award of nominal damages to private respondents from
P1,000.00 to P5,000.00 each. No costs.

Antonio W. Iran v. NLRC: (G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio W. Iran v. NLRC: (G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio W. Iran v. NLRC: (G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antonio W. Iran v.

III. Labor Standards

Petitioner Antonio Iran is engaged in softdrinks merchandising and distribution in

As part of their compensation, the driver/salesmen and truck helpers of petitioner

Sometime in June 1991, petitioner, while conducting an audit of his operations,

Article 97(f) of the Labor Code defines wage as follows:

While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of encouragement to inspire

Thus, the commissions earned by private respondents in selling softdrinks

You might also like