Antonio Iran vs NLRC_GR No. 121927_April 22, 1998

G.R. No. 121927 April 22, 1998 ANTONIO W. IRAN (doing business under the n!e nd st"le o# Tones Irn $nterprises%, petitioner, vs. NATIONA& &A'OR R$&ATION )O**IION (+ourth i-ision%, GOO+R$O O. $TRA&'A, *OR$NO )AA&O, $ITO T$)ON, AO&INARIO GOT/ONG G$*INA, 0$ 'ANI&AO, $WIN *ARTIN, )$&O &A'IAGA, IOAO GONA&GO, +$RNANO *. )O&INA, respondents. RO*$RO,

J.:

Whether or not commissions are included in determining compliance with the minimum wage requirement is the principal issue presented in this petition. Petitioner Antonio Antonio Iran is engaged in softdrinks merchandising and distribution in Mandaue Cit, Cit, Cebu, emploing truck drivers who double as salesmen, truck helpers, and non!field personnel in pursuit thereof. Petitioner hired private respondents "odofredo Petralba, Moreno Cadalso, Celso #abiaga and $ernando Colina as drivers%salesmen while private respondents Pepito &ecson, &ecson, Apolinario "imena, 'esus (andilao, )dwin Martin and *iosdado "on+algo were hired as truck helpers. *rivers%salesmen drove petitioners deliver trucks and promoted, sold and de livered softdrinks to various outlets in Mandaue Cit. &he truck helpers assisted in the deliver of softdrinks to the different outlets covered b the driver%salesmen.  As part of their their compensation, the the driver%salesmen driver%salesmen and truck helpers of petitioner received received commissions per case of softdrinks sold at the following ratesA#)M)/&en Centavos 0P1.213 per case of 4egular softdrinks. &welve &welve Centavos 0P1.253 per case of $amil i+e softdrinks. &46C7 8)#P)4)ight Centavos 0P1.193 per case of 4egular softdrinks. &en Centavos 0P1.213 per case of $amil i+e softdrinks. ometime in 'une 2::2, petitioner, while conducting an audit of his operations, discovered cash shortages and irregularities allegedl committed b private respondents. Pending the investigation of irregularities and settlement of the cash shortages, petitioner required private respondents to report for work everda. &he were not allowed, however, to go on their respective routes. A few das thereafter, despite aforesaid order, private respondents stopped reporting for work, prompting petitioner to conclude that the former had abandoned their emploment. Consequentl, petitioner petitioner terminated their services. 8e also filed on /ovember ;, 2::2, a complaint for estafa against private respondents. th month pa, allowances, separation pa, recover of cash bond, damages and attornes fees. aid complaints were consolidated and docketed as 4ab ?II!25!2;:2!:2, 4A( ?II!25!295=!:2 and 4A( ?II!25!295@!:2, and assigned to #abor Arbiter )rnesto $. Carreon. &he labor arbiter found that petitioner had validl terminated private respondents, there being ust cause for the latters dismissal. /evertheless, he also ruled that petitioner had not complied with minimum wage requirements in compensating private respondents, and had failed to pa private respondents their 2>th month pa. &he &he labor arbiter, thus, rendered a decision on $ebruar 29, 2::>, the dispositive portion of which readsW8)4)$.21 5. "odofredo Petralba 2,5=1.11 >. $ernando Colina 22,;=>.21 22,;=>.21 B. Moreno Cadalso 22,;=>.21

=. *iosdado "on+algo ;,2=:.1B @. Apolinario "imena 9,>25.5B ;. 'esus (andilao 2B,;5:.=1 9. Pepito &ecson. :,25@.==   Attornes $ees 021D3 ;B,22@.@> of the gross award ;,B22.@@  "4A/* &th month pa. Private respondents, on the other hand, contested the findings of the labor arbiter holding that the had not been illegall dismissed, as well as mathematical errors in computing 'esus (andilaos wage differentials. &he /#4C, in its decision of *ecember 52, 2::B, affirmed the validit of private respondents dismissal, but found that said dismissal did not compl with the procedural requirements for dismissing emploees. $urthermore, it corrected the labor arbiters award of wage d ifferentials to 'esus (andilao. &he dispositive portion of said decision readsW8)4)$