Herbert Solas vs. Power & Telephone Supply Phils., Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 16!! "u#ust $, %%$
acts' On 16 Au Augu gust st 1997, Herber bert Sol Solas ente ntered int into a cont contrract act of employment with Power and elephone !Supply Philippines, "nc#, to be the Assistant Sale ales $anager of the company with a monthl thly sala alary of P%1,6&&#&&, e'cluding e'cluding bonuses and commission# On &6 (o)ember 199*, pri)ate respondent company granted petitioner Herber Herbertt Solas Solas and +ranli ranlin n -# .uiach .uiachon on their their sales sales commi commissi ssion on from from the month of /anuary to /une of 199*# +rom that time up to the present, no other sales commission was e)er again gi)en to them# On &0 +ebru ebruar ary y %& %&&& &&,, peti petiti tion oner er reue euest sted ed for for the the relea elease se of his his alleged commission which had already accumulated since /uly of 199* which was was deni denied ed,, and and inst instea ead, d, peti petiti tion oner er was was e)en e)en mand mandat ated ed to sett settle le his his outstanding obligation with the company# On &7 +ebruary %&&&, petitioner liewise recei)ed ano another memorandum reuiring him to return the issued cellular phone, car and ey to his o2ce, which he allegedly all complied# Petitioner a)erred that these were all forms of harassment including the non3payment of his salary for the month month of +ebruar ebruary y %& %&&& &&,, and onwar onwards# ds# Hence, Hence, on 14 +ebruar ebruary y %&&&, %&&&, he instituted a case for illegal constructi)e dismissal, reco)ery of 1&5 sales commission on gross sales, and attorneys fees# Pri)ate respondents maintained that there was no agreement, written or oral, which taled of the grant of 1&5 commission on gross sales to sales agent, nor was there a 8A on the matter# here was e)en no 8A to spea of, since the company had no union, with its employees numbering only to less than 1&, all being 'ed3salaried employees# he company ga)e bonuses when there was an income, but these were purely on the liberality of the company, company, sub:ect to the a)ailability a)ailability of funds and prots# prots# 8esides, petitioner petitioner has actually no client of his own from whom he could close sales, thus the claim for commission was utterly baseless# he parties submitted their position papers# On ;1 August %&&&, the
(<=?, which re)ersed and set aside the decision of the
he (<= ruled that that there was no constructi)e dismissal in this case, because petitioner ne)er resigned but merely led an indenite sic lea)e, e)en admitting during the preliminary hearings that he was still an employee of respondents, and his principal claim was for payment of his sales commission# +urthermore, the (<= saw no badge of constructi)e dismissal in respondents action of applying petitioners salary for the month of +ebruary %&&& as payment for his debts to the company amounting to P94,&&&#&&# "t was also held that petitioner failed to establish that there was an agreement between him and respondent employer for a 1&5 sales commission, and that he failed to establish the origin and authenticity of the specic amount of the commission being claimed by him# Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration of the (<= -ecision, but the same was denied# +rom such ad)erse :udgment, petitioner ele)ated his case to the A via a petition for certiorari # On September 1%, %&&;, the A rendered a decision a2rming the decision of the (<=# Hence, this petition#
Issue' @hether or not the A committed gra)e abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e'cess of :urisdiction when it did not sustain the award of the
Hel(' (O# he (<= and the A were correct in not sustaining the award thereof by the
