Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

ARNOLD E. YAMBAO,
Complainant-Appellee

-VERSUS- NLRC Case No. RAB-III-05-3179-21

NEW HOPE BULACAN AGRICULTURE, INC.

and BETH DELA CRUZ,
Respondent-Appellant.
X---------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT NEW HOPE BULACAN

AGRICULTURE, INC. et. al, by Counsel, by way of APPEAL unto this
Honorable Commission respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The subject matter of this Memorandum of Appeal is the Decision,

dated 18 May 2022, of Labor Arbiter Ranele D. Pineda, which stated as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered ORDERING respondent New Hope Bulacan
Agriculture, Inc. to PAY complainant Arnold F. Yambao his
unpaid commissions amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-
Nine Thousand Five Hundred Pesos and 50/100 (PhP
329,500.50) plus attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the judgment award to be disbursed in
accordance with Republic Act No. 9406 of the PAO Law.
The judgment award shall earn legal interest of six percent
(6%) per annum to be computed from finality of this
Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.”

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

Appellant’s counsel on record received a copy of the questioned

DECISION via registered mail on June 02, 2022, hence, the tenth (10th)
day to file this Memorandum of Appeal shall expire on June 12, 2022,
which falls on a Sunday, thus, the next day to file the same is on the next
working day on June 13, 2022, Monday, as per Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC
Rules of Procedure.

1
 ADOPTION/INCORPORATION CLAUSE

The respondent-appellants NEW HOPE BULACAN

AGRICULTURE, INC. and BETH DELA CRUZ, for the record and for
convenience, respectfully hereby adopt into this Memorandum of Appeal,
by incorporation and reference, all the allegations and arguments stated
in, as well as all the supporting documents annexed to --- (a) the MAIN
POSITION PAPER filed with the Arbiter a quo and (b) its REJOINDER to
the complainant’s Reply to the Position Paper filed with the same Arbiter.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES

Complainant-appelee ARNOLD E. YAMBAO (“Yambao” for brevity),

is of legal age, Filipino and a resident of 0180 Purok 2, San Isisdro,
Hagonoy, Bulacan.

Respondent-appellant NEW HOPE BULACAN

A G R I C U L T U R A L I N C . is a domestic corporation engaged in
manufacturing of feed mix, with principal office address at Brgy.
Tibag, Pulilan, Bulacan. It is represented herein by its Human Resource
Manager Elizabeth Dela Cruz, who by virtue of a Board Resolution was duly
appointed to be the representative of the respondent corporation. Attached to the
records of this case is the duly notarized Secretary’s Certificate of respondent
corporation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant Yambao was hired by the respondent corporation on

November 4, 2020, as a Probationary Employee assigned at the Finance
Departent holding several accounts payable of the respondent’s client as
a Finance Collector.

As a Finance Collector, the nature of his job is to deal with the

collectible composed of unpaid accounts of the respondent corporation’s
clients. In the daily course of conduct of his duty as a Finance collector, he
commonly had meetings and negotiations with the clients together with other
members of the Department for the purpose of bargaining and exploring he
possibility of amicable settlement.

Based on the nature of the work of the complainant, he has been a field
personnel of the respondent corporation and as payment for his services, the
respondent corporation has paid the complainant a salary on the amount of
P420.00/day, 13th month pay, premium pay for rest days and holidays, and
service incentive leave (SIL) pay. He was also provide with the mandatory
benefits provided for by the labor code.

In addition to the said perks and privilege he has been receiving, he

was also given commission on top of his salary equivalent to 3% or 5%
based in the last date of delivered order as reflected on the respondent’s
client statement of account and pegged on the actual collected amount
assigned to him on bad debts and unpaid accounts of the company.

Such commissions were divided among the numbers of the finance

collectors who actually worked for the settlement of the said accounts.

As a probationary employee, it is agreed upon that the period of his

employment shall be THREE (3) MONTHS from the time his services is
engaged by the respondent corporation, which may be extended if the
corporation wanted or if he has satisfied the necessary skills and working
conditions provided by the company. This has been explained to the
complainant-appellee during the signing of his Probationary Employment
Contract.

On the initial days of the complainant-appellee on his work, he then

was tasked to accompany his officemate and co-finance collector Mr.
Danilo Crisologo, Jr. Thus, it was really the finance collectors Danilo
Crisologo, Jr. and Jessica Sunga who exerted efforts in making and
closing the terms of the agreement or the out of court settlement which, in
essence, restructured the corporation’s clients payables for a period of
sixty months from January 2021, with expected commission equivalent to
3% per actual collection made from such bad debts.

It was and still is the policy of the corporation that after the
resignation or termination of an employee from the company, any and all
commission to be received form an actual successful payment of a
corporation’s client shall cease to exist and be given to the next person or
employee who will assume the responsibility of making follow-ups and
arrangements to collect such payment from such client.

While the complainant-appellee was tasked to do his job of collecting

bad debts, he failed to perform his job yielded no positive outcome,
making him inefficient and ineffective in his work.

But still the respondent-appellant corporation still opted to give him a

second chance and extended his probationary employment period for
another two months after the lapse of the period of probation of February
4, 2021. This is despite of the negative impression on the complainant-
appellee by his supervisors and co-workers.

Despite the chance given to the complainant-appellee, the

respondent continued showing negative traits, poor working habits and
inefficient and ineffective work performance. Thus, sometime in the third
week of April 2021, the respondent corporation rolled another set of
assessment to pave the way for the regularization or termination the
complainant-appellee.

The assessment unsurprisingly yielded negative comment and

ratings from his superiors and co-workers. Thus, after giving due
credence to the said assessment, the respondent-appellant resolved to
finally terminate the employment of the complainant-appellee as a

3
probationary employee for failure to reach the necessary skills and
satisfactory performance expected of him as a finance collector.

On April 19, 2021, the complainant through a letter personally served

upon his person was informed that his employment will be terminated
effectively on April 30, 2021. In the same letter, he was informed to settle
all the necessary pending works and turnover all document in favor of the
company. His signature over his printed name at the lower part the said
letter shoed his receipt thereto.

As early as in the mediation proceedings during the Single Entry

Approach, the parties agreed upon to settle all issues alleged in the
complaint. However, despite faithful negotiation of the respondent with
the complainant, the latter still demanded for unfounded commission for
the uncollected portion from the out of court settlement earlier mentioned.
In in addition thereto, and as alleged and attached in the Position Paper,
a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim has been executed by the complainant-
appellee.
ISSUE
The sole issue here is:
WHETHER ON NOT THE COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE IS
STILL ENTITLED TO INCENTIVES AND/OR
COMMISSIONS FROM UNCOLLECTED BAD DEBTS
FROM THE RESPONDENT’S CLIENTS DESPITE THE
TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT

DISCUSSION

COMPLAINANT IS NOT ENTITLED

TO COMMISSION FOR
PAYMENTS COLLECTED AFTER
HIS EMPLOYMNEBNT WITH THE
RESPONDENT-APPELANT HAS
BEEN TERMINATED OR CEASED
TO EXIST
Herein respondent-appellant respectfully submits that the Labor
Arbiter a quo abused her discretion and committed serious errors of fact
and law which, if not corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage
or injury to the appellant.

In this case for purely money claims, the complainant-appellee only

claims entitlement to unpaid commissions amounting to Three Hundred
Twenty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Pesos and 50/100 (P329,500.50). He
maintains that he had successfully collected the outstanding debt of
P21,591,010.00 ++ from the clients of the respondent corporation, that the
there was no reason for the respondent to withhold his commissions
therefrom.
 On the other hand, herein respondent-appellant claims that the
complainant is no longer entitled to his commissions, for his employment
with them has been validly terminated and ceased to exist on 30 April
2021. And more importantly, it was really the finance collector Danilo C.
Crisologo, Jr. with Jessica Sunga who exerted efforts in making and closing
the terms of the agreement for the out of court settlement. Company policy
dictates that commissions shall be given to the next person or employee
who will assume the responsibility of making follow-ups and arrangements
to collect such payment and who will be able to make the successful
collection. Thus, the complainant is no longer entitled to commissions.

In the case of Perlas-Bernabe, J., SC 1st Division, Toyota Pasig,

Inc. vs. Vilma S. De Peralta, G.R. No. 213488, November 07, 2016, it
was held that:

“……respondent’s monetary claims, such as commissions, tax

rebates for achieved monthly targets, and success share/profit
sharing, are given to her as incentives or forms of encouragement
in order for her to put extra effort in performing her duties as an
ISE. Clearly, such claims fall within the ambit of the general term
“commissions” which in turn, fall within the definition of wages
pursuant to prevailing law and jurisprudence. Thus, respondent’s
allegation of nonpayment of such monetary benefits places the
burden on the employer, i.e., petitioner, to prove with a
reasonable degree of certainty that it paid said benefits and that
the employee, i.e., respondent, actually received such payment or
that the employee was not entitled thereto.”

“This definition explicitly includes commissions as part of wages.

While commissions are, indeed, incentives or forms of
encouragement to inspire employees to put a little more industry
on the jobs particularly assigned to them, still these commissions
are direct remunerations for services rendered.”

Since commissions are considered as part of wages, and wages are

given for done, then they should be given to the employee or worker only
after the work has been performed. Since the complainant-appellee’s
employment with the respondent -appellant has been validly terminated
prior to the collection of payments from the corporation’s clients, then he is
considered to have not completed his collection work. His co-finance
collector, Danilo Crisologo, succeeded him and was able to collect from the
clients.

The respondent-appellant has clearly established that the complainant-

appellee has been terminated on Apil 30, 2021, prior to the collection of the
payment due to bad debts from the corporation’s clients. The complainant-
appellee is claiming in advance the commission pegged on future
collections of the respondent-appellant corporation. At the time that he has
been terminated, there was yet no collection of the payment of bad debts
from the clients of the corporation.

The obligation of the respondent-appellant to the complainant-appellee

with regard to the commission extends only on actual collected amount

5
from the clients. The same obligation ceases to exists from the time of
severance of employer-employee relationship.

Equity dictates that an employee not anymore connected to the

company is no longer entitled to any benefits, monetary or in kind, from the
corporation. This is especially true in this case because the basis for the
commission has not been earned yet or was still uncollected from the
clients at the time that his employment had ceased to exist. The
complainant-appellee had not completed all of his duties to secure the
commission after his termination form the company.

The case MEDEX vs. McCabe cited by the Labor Arbiter a quo is not
applicable in this case. Such ruling can only be applied if the duties to earn
commission has been fully met or complied with. But such is not the case
here, for it was the succeeding finance collector, Danilo Crisologo, Jr. who
continued to work and completed/succeeded in collecting the unpaid debts
from the clients.

Considering that the complainant-appellee has failed to present

substantial evidence to corroborate his claim for commissions, then this
case is unfounded and should have been outrightly dismissed.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Commission that the appealed DECISION dated May
18, 2022 be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Further, that the complaint
be DISMISSED with costs against the complainant-appellee.

Respondent-appellant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as

may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
12 June 2022, Plaridel, Bulacan for San Fernando, Pampanga.

ATTY. MICHAEL ANTHONY M. DEL ROSARIO

Counsel for the Respondent-Appellee
IBP Life Member Roll No. 08083
February 9, 2009 O.R. No. 780645
PTR No. 9380782-C 01/08/2020 Q.C.
SC Roll No. 40497
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0003656
Valid from 04/15/2022 until 04/14/2025
e-mail address: [email protected]
Phone Nos. (02) 8291-0863 local 301

ADR FARMS COMPOUND

No. 0007 San Roque Street
Brgy. Sta. Ines, Plaridel 3004, Bulacan

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATE AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING
 I, ELIZABETH DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, with business address at c/o
NEW HOPE BULACAN AGRICULTURE, INC., Brgy. Tibag, Pulilan, Bulacan, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that
pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure:

1. I am the representative of the respondent-appellant in this case having

been duly authorized to file the instant complaint in behalf of the
corporation as per the Secretary’s Certificate of the corporation attached
to the records of this case;
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this Memorandum of Appeal
upon the authority of the respondent corporation; and I have read and
understood the contents hereof and the facts herein alleged are true and
correct based of my personal knowledge, or based on authentic
documents;
3. This Memorandum of Appeal is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support after reasonable
opportunity for discovery;
5. I have not commenced any other action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
6. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) calendar
days therefrom to this court wherein this complaint has been filed.

WITH
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ELIZABETH DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, with business address at c/o
NEW HOPE BULACAN AGRICULTURE, INC., Brgy. Tibag, Pulilan, Bulacan, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby state that:

1. On 12 June 2022, I served a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Appeal on

the adverse counsel in the instant case via recognized courier service:

ATTY. KRISTINE KAY S. DAVID-MANUEL

Public Attorney IV
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Counsel for Complainant-appellee
Department of Justice
2nd Floor, Hall of Justice Building
Provincial Capitol Compound

2. The LBC original receipt is attached herein to prove the foregoing statement.
3. I am executing this affidavit of service as per Rule on Appeals of the NLRC Rules
of Procedure to prove the fact of service of a copy of the foregoing Memorandum
of Appeal on the aforementioned adverse counsel.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hands this 12 th day of June 2022 in
Pulilan, Bulacan.

ELIZABETH DELA CRUZ

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 th day of June 2022 in Pulilan, Bulacan
by herein affiant, who has satisfactorily proven to me her identity through her UMID ID
No. ______________; that he is the same person who signed the foregoing instrument
before me and acknowledged that she executed the same.

7
Doc. No. _______;
Page No._______;
Book No._______;
Series of 2022.