Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    G.R. No. 232949

    Uploaded by

    EA Encore
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition filed by Jose V. Hisoler III challenging his dismissal from Filipino Travel Center Corporation. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Hisoler committed a serious violation of company rules by allowing unauthorized passengers, compromising safety. As a field worker whose hours and duties could not be closely monitored, he was not entitled to certain employee benefits. The Court of Appeals decision upholding his dismissal was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 232949

    Uploaded by

    EA Encore
    32 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition filed by Jose V. Hisoler III challenging his dismissal from Filipino Travel Center Corporation. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Hisoler committed a serious violation of company rules by allowing unauthorized passengers, compromising safety. As a field worker whose hours and duties could not be closely monitored, he was not entitled to certain employee benefits. The Court of Appeals decision upholding his dismissal was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition filed by Jose V. Hisoler III challenging his dismissal from Filipino Travel Center Corporation. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Hisoler committed a serious violation of company rules by allowing unauthorized passengers, compromising safety. As a field worker whose hours and duties could not be closely monitored, he was not entitled to certain employee benefits. The Court of Appeals decision upholding his dismissal was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    32 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 232949

    Uploaded by

    EA Encore
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied a petition filed by Jose V. Hisoler III challenging his dismissal from Filipino Travel Center Corporation. The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Hisoler committed a serious violation of company rules by allowing unauthorized passengers, compromising safety. As a field worker whose hours and duties could not be closely monitored, he was not entitled to certain employee benefits. The Court of Appeals decision upholding his dismissal was therefore affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    9/1/22, 1:27 PM [ G.R. No.

    232949, November 20, 2017 ]

    FIRST DIVISION
    [ G.R. No. 232949, November 20, 2017 ]
    JOSE V. HISOLER III V. FILIPINO TRAVEL CENTER CORPORATION /
    JOHAN HENK VAN WEERDEN, A.K.A. HANS VAN WEERDEN

    Sirs/Mesdames:

    Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20,
    2017, which reads as follows:

    "G.R. No. 232949 - Jose V. Hisoler III v. Filipino Travel Center Corporation / Johan Henk
    Van Weerden, a.k.a. Hans Van Weerden

    The Court hereby resolved to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time filed by petitioner
    seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on
    August 11, 2017 within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.

    Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on
    Certiorari of the May 17, 2017 Decision and July 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
    (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 147604, the Court further resolved to DENY the Petition for failure to
    show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and
    Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

    We find no compelling reason to depart from the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter (LA),
    the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the CA that petitioner was validly
    dismissed. As long as their decision is supported by facts and the evidence, the matter of
    evaluating the merits and demerits of the case is left to their sound discretion.[1]  Petitioner,
    indeed, committed a serious misconduct and violation of company rules when he allowed other
    persons to ride with paying customers which compromised their safety. An employer cannot be
    compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer.
    The dismissal of petitioner who is guilty of such a serious infraction is, therefore, reasonable.

    We also agree with the finding of the NLRC and affirmed by the CA that petitioner is a field
    personnel. Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, a field personnel is defined as "non-agricultural
    employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or
    branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined
    with reasonable certainty." Petitioner insists that he is not a field worker as his hours of work
    can be determined with reasonable certainty, claiming that with the advent of modern
    technology such as the global positioning system (GPS) and cellular phone, his work hours and
    performance as driver were effectively monitored by his employer.

    We are not persuaded. Certainly, with the help of petitioner's cellular phone and the company
    vehicle's GPS, respondents can monitor the progress of petitioner's trip and location. However,
    https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 1/2
    9/1/22, 1:27 PM [ G.R. No. 232949, November 20, 2017 ]

    the definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the
    employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee's performance is
    unsupervised by the employer.[2] As correctly observed by the NLRC, petitioner's activity
    remains unsupervised as he was even able to let unauthorized persons join the tour without the
    knowledge of respondents. The CA observed that the hours spent to the actual field work were
    left to the control of petitioner. Obviously, petitioner is not under constant supervision of the
    company while in the performance of his work. Consequently, being a field personnel,
    petitioner is not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day premium and service incentive
    leave pay.[3]

    ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed May 17, 2017 Decision and
    July 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 147604.

    The Court of Appeals is DROPPED as public respondent in this case pursuant to Section 4,
    Rule 45, Rules of Court.

    SO ORDERED."

    Very truly yours,

    (Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA


    Division Clerk of Court

    [1] Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 327
    Phil. 838, 848(1996).

    [2] Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, 497 Phil. 863, 874 (2005).

    [3]See Section 2 of Rule I, Section 7 of Rule III, Section l(e) of Rule IV and Section l(d) of
    Rule V, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

    Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 27, 2018

    This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

    https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 2/2

    You might also like