Asentista v. Jupp & Company, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marilyn B. Asentista (Asentista) was employed by JUPP & Company, Inc. (JUPP) as a sales secretary, later becoming a regular employee as a sales assistant, and eventually a sales agent. As a sales agent, she was entitled to a two percent commission for every attained monthly quota. Despite reaching her quotas, JUPP allegedly failed to pay her earned sales commissions. In 2011, JUPP issued a Toyota Avanza to Asentista for her sales performance, with ownership remaining with the company. JUPP subsequently deducted ₱113,000.00 for car plan participation and ₱68,721.36 for one year's rental from her unpaid sales commission. Asentista resigned effective February 28, 2013, and returned the vehicle. She then filed a claim for unpaid commission and refund for car plan deductions, totaling ₱210,077.99 after various deductions. Procedural History: Asentista filed a complaint for non-payment of sales commission before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint, finding no merit and emphasizing that the employment agreement did not stipulate sales commission or refund for car plan payments. The NLRC, on appeal, reversed the LA's decision, granting Asentista's claim for unpaid sales commissions and attorney's fees, giving credence to electronic messages from Ascutia and holding that JUPP lacked authority to forfeit commissions as rentals. The CA, in a petition for certiorari, set aside the NLRC's resolution and reinstated the LA's decision, finding the email evidence self-serving and unsubstantial, and agreeing that Asentista was not entitled to sales commission based on her employment agreement. The Petition: Asentista filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing her entitlement to sales commission and refund for car plan participation and amortization payments, asserting that respondents admitted her entitlement to discretionary commission and deductions. Respondents reiterated their opposition, citing the absence of sales commission in the employment agreement and refuting the evidentiary value of the email messages.
Issue(s)
Whether Asentista is entitled to unpaid sales commissions. Whether JUPP & Company, Inc. and/or Joseph V. Ascutia are entitled to deduct car plan participation and amortization payments from Asentista's unpaid sales commission. Whether the burden of proof rests on Asentista to prove her claim for unpaid commission and car participation refund.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. Respondents JUPP & Company, Inc. and/or Joseph V. Ascutia were ordered to pay Marilyn B. Asentista the amount of ₱210,077.95 plus ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award as attorney's fees and legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from its finality until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to sales commission: The Court held that the respondents could no longer refute Asentista's entitlement to a discretionary commission, as an admission could be deduced from their position paper. The silence of the employment agreement regarding sales commission does not affect entitlement, as the definition of 'wage' under Section 97(f) of the Labor Code includes remuneration calculated on a commission basis, whether written or unwritten. Citing Toyota Pasig, Inc. v. De Peralta and Iran v. NLRC, the Court affirmed that sales commissions are direct remunerations for services rendered and are part of a salesman's wage or salary. The Court found that Asentista had sufficiently particularized her unpaid monetary claims based on electronic messages from Ascutia, and the respondents failed to present evidentiary proof from employment records to show payment. On the deductions for car plan participation and amortization: The Court concurred with Asentista that in the absence of any express stipulation, the respondents could not deduct car participation and amortization payments from her unpaid sales commission. Citing Locsin v. Mekeni Food Corp., the Court stated that in the absence of specific terms governing a car plan agreement, an employer may not retain installment payments and treat them as rents for vehicle use, especially when the vehicle was used for the employer's business. The Court found that the respondents and Asentista did not agree on any car participation plan, and the deductions were unilateral. The Court applied the principle of unjust enrichment, stating that the respondents unjustly enriched themselves at Asentista's expense by unilaterally deducting payments without consent, to her prejudice. On the burden of proof: The Court reiterated the settled labor doctrine that in cases involving non-payment of monetary claims, the employer bears the burden of proving that the employees received their wages and benefits and that they were paid in accordance with law. Citing Grandteq Industrial Steel Products, Inc. and Abelardo M. Gonzales v. Edna Margallo and De Guzman v. NLRC, et al., the Court emphasized that once an employee particularizes their claims, it becomes the employer's burden to prove payment, as employment records are exclusively within the employer's custody and control. The Court found that Asentista particularized her claims, and the respondents failed to discharge their burden of proof by presenting contrary evidence.
Main Doctrine
Sales commission is considered part of an employee's wage or salary, and in cases of non-payment of monetary claims, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the employee has been paid. Furthermore, in the absence of specific terms governing a car plan agreement, an employer cannot deduct car participation and amortization payments from an employee's unpaid sales commission, as this may constitute unjust enrichment.