Solas v. Power Telephone Supply Phils.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Herbert Solas was employed as Assistant Sales Manager by Power and Telephone Supply Phils., Inc. with a monthly salary of P21,600.00, excluding bonuses and commission. In November 1998, he and Franklin D. Quiachon each received P85,418.00 as sales commission for January to June 1998. No further commissions were given. On February 4, 2000, Solas requested his accumulated commission since July 1998, which was denied via inter-office memorandum, and he was instead asked to settle his outstanding obligation. On February 7, 2000, he received another memorandum requiring him to return his company cellular phone, car, and office key, which he complied with. Solas alleged these were forms of harassment, including the non-payment of his salary for February 2000 onwards, leading him to file a case for illegal constructive dismissal, recovery of sales commission, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Solas, ordering the company to pay P892,780.37 as sales commission, six months' backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, finding no constructive dismissal because Solas filed an indefinite sick leave and admitted to still being an employee. The NLRC also found no basis for constructive dismissal in the application of Solas's February 2000 salary to his debts amounting to P95,000.00. Furthermore, the NLRC held that Solas failed to establish an agreement for a 10% sales commission and the authenticity of the claimed amount. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, stating that Solas did not resign but filed a sick leave, and the non-payment of salary was due to the offsetting of his cash advances. The CA also found no sufficient basis for the commission claim due to lack of satisfactory evidence. The Petition: Solas filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's affirmation of the NLRC's decision, arguing that the CA erred in finding no illegal dismissal and in deleting the monetary awards.
Issue(s)
Whether Herbert Solas was illegally constructively dismissed. Whether Herbert Solas is entitled to the claimed sales commission.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, finding no constructive dismissal and no sufficient basis for the claim of sales commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court found no constructive dismissal. The NLRC and CA correctly ruled that Solas did not resign but merely filed an indefinite sick leave. His contention that the non-payment of his salary for February 2000 onwards bolstered his claim of constructive dismissal was without merit. The Court found it more logical to conclude that the reason he did not receive his salary was due to the offsetting of his cash advances amounting to approximately P95,000.00. The employer's actions, such as requiring the return of the company car, cellphone, and office keys, were rebutted and sufficiently explained. The withholding of salary was justified by Solas's indebtedness. The company car was issued to another employee, and Solas could only borrow it with consent. The office key was not exclusively used by any single employee. The cellphone remained company property, and personal calls were to be paid for by employees. Solas never refuted these explanations, constituting admission by silence. Therefore, the NLRC and CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was no constructive dismissal. On the issue of sales commission: The NLRC and CA were correct in not sustaining the award of commissions by the Labor Arbiter. There is no law requiring employers to pay commissions; thus, it is incumbent upon the employee to prove an agreement for payment. Solas presented an employment certificate stating he received salary exclusive of bonuses and sales commissions, and the fact that he received P85,418.00 in 1998. However, the CA correctly ruled that the employment certificate was insufficient as it did not detail the conditions or percentage for payment. The P85,418.00 was asserted by respondents as a one-time bonus, not a commission. Solas's computations for commissions were determined and prepared unilaterally, making them self-serving and inadequate to prove his claim of P892,780.37.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission, holding that there was no constructive dismissal as the employer's actions were justified and supported by substantial evidence, and that the employee failed to sufficiently prove entitlement to sales commissions.