David versus Macasio
Facts: 1. Macasio fled fled beore beore the Labor Arbiter Arbiter a complaint against against petitioner petitioner Ariel L. David, doing business under the name and style !iels "og Dealer,# or nonpayment o overtime pay, holiday pay, and 1$th month pay. %. "e also claimed payment payment or moral and and e&emplary e&emplary damages damages and attorney's ees( and or payment o service s ervice incentive leave (SIL). (SIL) . $. Macasio alleged alleged beore beore the the Labor Arbiter that he had been been )or*ing )or*ing as a butcher or David since +anuary , 1--. /. Macasio claimed claimed that David e&ercis e&ercised ed e0ective control and supervision supervision over his )or*, pointing out that David: 12 set the )or* day, reporting time and hogs to be chopped, as )ell as the manner by )hich he )as to perorm his )or*( %2 daily paid his salary o 3455.55, )hich )as increased rom 355.55 in %554, 355.55 in %55 and 3/55.55 in %55( and $2 approved and disapproved his leaves. . Macasio added added that David David o)ned the hogs delivered or chopping, chopping, as )ell as the )or* tools and implements( David also rented the )or*place. . Macasio urther urther claimed claimed that that David employs about about t)enty6fve t)enty6fve %2 butchers and delivery drivers. 4. David claimed that he started started his hog dealer business in %55, and that he only has ten employees. 7. "e alleged that he hired hired Macasio as a butcher butcher or chopper chopper on pa*ya)# or tas* basis )ho is, thereore, not entitled to overtime pay, holiday pay and 1$th month pay. -. David David poin pointed ted out out that that Macasi Macasio: o: 12 usually starts his )or* at 15:55 p.m. and ends at %:55 a.m. o the ollo)ing day or earlier, depending on the volume o the delivered hogs( %2 received the f&ed amount o 3455.55 per engagement, regardless o the actual number o hours that he spent chopping the delivered hogs( and $2 )as not engaged to report or )or* and, accordingly, did not receive any ee )hen no hogs )ere delivered. 15.Macasio disputed David's allegations. 11."e argued that, frst, David did not start his business only in %55. "e pointed to the 8ertifcate o 9mployment that David issued in his avor )hich placed the date o his employment, albeit erroneously, in +anuary %555. 1%.econd, he reported or )or* every day )hich the payroll or time record could have easily proved had David submitted them in evidence. 1$.David claimed that he issued the 8ertifcate o 9mployment, upon Macasio's re;uest, only or overseas employment purposes.
1/.L?8 a@rmed the Labor arbiter's ruling. 14.L?8's ruling or having been rendered )ith grave abuse o discretion. 17.hile the 8A agreed )ith the LA and the >L?8 that Macasio )as a tas* basis employee, it nevertheless ound Macasio entitled to his monetary claims. 1-.
=ssue
"eld: 1. David conuses engagement on pakyaw# or tas* basis )ith the lac* o employment relationship. =mpliedly, David asserts that their pakyawan# or tas* basis arrangement negates the e&istence o employment relationship. %.
. Macasio's relationship )ith David satisfes this test. 4. A distinguishing characteristic of “pakyaw” or task basis engageent! as opposed to straight"hour wage payent! is the non"consideration of the tie spent in working. 7. #he payent of an eployee on task or pakyaw basis alone is insu$cient to e%clude one fro the coverage of Service Incentive Leave (SIL) and holiday pay. -. In deterining whether workers engaged on “pakyaw” or task basis is entitled to holiday and Service Incentive Leave (SIL) pay! the presence (or absence) of eployer supervision as regards the worker&s tie and perforance is the key. 15.L?8 gravely abused its discretion in denying this beneft to Macasio. 1/.ote that unli*e the =?? o the Labor 8ode on holiday and =L pay, ection $e2 o the ?ules and ?egulations =mplementing 3D 71 e&empts employees paid on tas* basis# )ithout any reerence to feld personnel.# D
