Sales Commissions, Tax Rebates, or Profit Sharing may Form Part of the Employee’s WageAtty Elvin
The employee claims for payment of sales commissions, tax rebates, and profit sharing. The company denied contending that these are unfounded and without documentation and validation.
The Supreme Court held that “Wage” paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis xxx.
The aforesaid provision explicitly includes commissions as part of wages.
Citing Iran v. NLRC, the Court held that 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. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that commissions are part of a salesman’s wage or salary. This, however, does not detract from the character of such commissions as part of the salary or wage paid to each of its salesmen for rendering services to the corporation.
In this case, complainant’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.
Clearly, such claims fall within the ambit of the general term “commissions” which in tum, fall within the definition of wages pursuant to prevailing law and jurisprudence.
Thus, complainant’s allegation of nonpayment of such monetary benefits places the burden on the employer, i.e., company, to prove with a reasonable degree of certainty that it paid said benefits and that the employee, i.e., complainant, actually received such payment or that the employee was not entitled thereto.
It is well-settled that the failure of employers to submit the necessary documents that are in their possession gives rise to the presumption that the presentation thereof is prejudicial to its cause.
(Toyota Pasig, Inc. Vs. Vilma S. De Peralta, G.R. No. 213488. November 7, 2016)
How to Validly Compute Employee Compensation and Benefits