Netlink Computer Incorporated v. Delmo

BERSAMIN, J.:

In the absence of a written agreement between the employer and the employee that sales commissions shall be paid in a foreign currency, the latter has the right to be paid in such foreign currency once the same has become an established practice of the former. The rate of exchange at the time of payment, not the rate of exchange at the time of the sales, controls. Antecedents On November 3, 1991, Netlink Computer, Inc. Products and Services (Netlink) hired Eric S. Delmo (Delmo) as account manager tasked to canvass and source clients and convince them to purchase the products and services of Netlink.

Delmo worked in the field most of the time. He and his fellow account managers were not required to accomplish time cards to record their personal presence in the office of Netlink.1 He was able to generate sales worth ₱35,000,000.00, more or less, from which he earned commissions amounting to ₱993,558.89 and US$7,588.30. He then requested payment of his commissions, but Netlink refused and only gave him partial cash advances chargeable to his commissions.

Later on, Netlink began to nitpick and fault find, like stressing his supposed absences and tardiness. In order to force him to resign, Netlink issued several memoranda detailing his supposed infractions of the company's attendance policy. Despite the memoranda, Delmo continued to generate huge sales for Netlink.2 On November 28, 1996, Delmo was shocked when he was refused entry into the company premises by the security guard pursuant to a memorandum to that effect.

His personal belongings were still inside the company premises and he sought their return to him. This incident prompted Delmo to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.3 In its answer to Delmo's complaint,Netlink countered that there were guidelines regarding company working time and its utilization and how the employees' time would be recorded. Allegedly, all personnel were required to use the bundy clock to punch in and out in the morning, and in and out in the afternoon.

Excepted from the rules were the company officers, and the authorized personnel in the field project assignments. Netlink claimed that it would be losing on the business transactions closed by Delmo due to the high costs of equipment, and in fact his biggest client had not yet paid. Netlink pointed out that Delmo had becomevery lax in his obligations, with the other account managers eventually having outperformed him.

Netlink asserted that warning, reprimand, and suspension memoranda were given to employees who violated company rules and regulations, but such actions were considered as a necessary management tool to instill discipline.4 Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On September 23, 1998, the Labor Arbiter ruled against Netlink and in favor of Delmo, to wit:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant as illegally and unjustly dismissed and respondents are ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights with full backwages and other benefits and respondents are hereby ordered to pay complainant as follows: ₱161,000.00 - Backwages, basic pay and allowances from Nov. 1996 to Sept. 1998 15,000.00 - 13th month pay for 1996 to 1998 993,558.89 - unpaid commissions ₱1,169,558.89