ON JUNE 20, 1997, respondent The Bill Sender Corp., engaged in the business of delivering bills and other mail matters, employed petitioner Reynaldo S. Geraldo as a delivery/messenger to deliver the bills of its client, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
He was paid on a “per-piece basis,” the amount of his salary depending on the number of bills he delivered.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner against respondent, the latter invoked the defense that petitioner was not a full-time employee but only a piece-rate worker, as he reported to work only as he pleased, and that it was a usual practice for messengers to transfer from one company to another to similarly deliver bills and mail matters.
As such, he would only be given bills to deliver if he reports to work, otherwise, the bills would be assigned to other messengers.
Does this defense find merit?
Ruling: No.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the company was engaged in the business of delivering bills and other mail matters for and in behalf of their customers, and that Geraldo was engaged as a delivery/messenger tasked to deliver bills of the company’s clients.
Clearly, the company cannot deny the fact that Geraldo was performing activities necessary or desirable in its usual business or trade, for without his services, its fundamental purpose of delivering bills cannot be accomplished.
On this basis alone, the law deems Geraldo as a regular employee of the company. But even considering that he was not a full-time employee as the company insisted, the law still deems his employment as regular due to the fact that he had been performing the activities for more than one year. In fact, counting the number of years from the time he was engaged by the company on June 20, 1997 up to the time his services were terminated on August 7, 2011 reveals that he has been delivering mail matters for the company for more than 14 years.
Without question, this amount of time that is well beyond a decade sufficiently discharges the requirement of the law. While length of time may not be the controlling test to determine if an employee is indeed a regular employee, it is vital in establishing if he was hired to perform tasks which are necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
The Court, moreover, cannot subscribe to the company’s contention that Geraldo is not a regular employee but merely a piece-rate worker since his salary depends on the number of bills he is able to deliver.
In Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo Gamboa Jr. v. Villegas, 743 Phil. 530, 539 (2014), the Court held that the payment on a piece-rate basis does not negate regular employment. The term “wage” is broadly defined in Article 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earnings, capable of being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis.
Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations. Thus, the fact that Geraldo is paid on the basis of his productivity does not render his employment as contractual.
It must be remembered that notwithstanding any agreements to the contrary, what determines whether a certain employment is regular is not the will and word of the employer, to which the desperate worker often accedes, much less the procedure of hiring the employee or the manner of paying his salary. It is the nature of the activities performed in relation to the particular business or trades considering all circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence. (Reynaldo S. Geraldo vs. The Bill Sender Corp./Ms. Lourdes Ner Cando, G.R. No. 222219, October 3, 2018).