Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=83195:57213&amp;catid=1584&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:14:27+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 162021, June 16, 2014 - MEGA MAGAZINE PUBLICATIONS, INC., JERRY TIU, AND SARITA V. YAP, Petitioners, v. MARGARET A. DEFENSOR, Respondent.
MEGA MAGAZINE PUBLICATIONS, INC., JERRY TIU, AND SARITA V. YAP, Petitioners, v. MARGARET A. DEFENSOR, Respondent.
In labor cases, the rules on the degree of proof are enforced not as stringently as in other cases in order to better serve the higher ends of justice. This lenity is intended to afford to the employee every opportunity to level the playing field.
Being now assailed is the amended decision promulgated on November 19, 2003,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reconsidered its original disposition, and granted the petition for certiorari filed by respondent Margaret A. Defensor (respondent) by annulling and setting aside the adverse resolutions dated July 31, 2002 and March 31, 2003 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The respondent sent another memorandum on April 5, 1999 setting out the 1999 advertisement sales, target and commissions, and proposing that the schedule of her outright commissions should start at .05% of P34.5 million total revenue, or P175,000.00;6 and further proposing that the special incentives be given when total revenues reached P35-P38 million.
The respondent appealed, but the NLRC denied the appeal for its lack of merit,18 with the NLRC concurring with the LA’s ruling that there had been no agreement between the petitioners and the respondent on the terms and conditions of the incentives reached.
The respondent brought a special civil action for certiorari in the CA. In its decision promulgated on August 28, 2003,21 the CA dismissed the respondent’s petition for certiorari and upheld the resolutions of the NLRC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Our Decision of August 28, 2003 is hereby RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered GIVING DUE COURSE to the petition and GRANTING the writ prayed for. Accordingly, the challenged Resolutions of the NLRC in NLRC NCR 00-03-61361-00 (CA No. 028358-01) dated July 31, 2002 and March 31, 2003 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby remanded to the NLRC for reception of additional evidence on appeal as prayed for by petitioner and for proper proceedings in accordance with Our disquisitions herein.
The denial of the claim for 14th month pay is sustained for lack of evidentiary basis.
RESPONDENT CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT NEWLY-DISCOVERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL.
The important issue is whether or not the respondent was entitled to the commissions and the incentive bonus being claimed.
The appeal is partly meritorious.
The grant of a bonus or special incentive, being a management prerogative, is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, except when the bonus or special incentive is made part of the wage, salary or compensation of the employee,29 or is promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon by the parties.30 By its very definition, bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver,31 and cannot be considered part of an employee’s wages if it is paid only when profits are realized or a certain amount of productivity is achieved. If the desired goal of production or actual work is not accomplished, the bonus does not accrue.
Due to the nature of the bonus or special incentive being a gratuity or act of liberality on the part of the giver, the respondent could not validly insist on the schedule proposed in her memorandum of April 5, 1999 considering that the grant of the bonus or special incentive remained a management prerogative. However, the Court agrees with the CA’s ruling that the petitioners had already exercised the management prerogative to grant the bonus or special incentive. At no instance did Yap flatly refuse or reject the respondent’s request for commissions and the bonus or incentive. This is plain from the fact that Yap even “bargained” with the respondent on the schedule of the rates and the revenues on which the bonus or incentive would be pegged. What remained contested was only the schedule of the rates and the revenues. In her initial memorandum of February 25, 1999, the respondent had suggested the following schedule, namely: (a) 0.05% outright commission on total revenue of P28-P29 million; (b) 0.075% on P30-P34 million; (c) 0.1% on P35-P38 million; (d) 0.1% on P39-P41 million pesos; and (f) 0.1% on P41 million or higher, but Yap had countered by revising the schedule to start at 0.1% as outright commissions on a total revenue of P35-P38 million, and the special incentive bonus to start at revenues of P35-P38 million. Moreover, on December 8, 1999, Yap sent to the respondent a memorandum entitled Re: Formalization of my handwritten approval of 1999 Incentive scheme dated 25 February 1999. Such actuations and actions by Yap indicated that, firstly, the petitioners had already acceded to the grant of the special incentive bonus; and, secondly, the only issue still to be threshed out was at which point and at what rate the respondent’s outright commissions and the special incentive bonus for the sales staff should be given.
Commissionable ad revenue is net of advertising agency commission and absorbed production costs. Commission will be paid in bartered goods and cash in direct proportion to percentage of cash and bartered goods revenue for the year. This amount will be paid by January 30, 2000 if the documents (contracts, P.O.s) to support the gross revenue claim are in order and submitted to Finance.
Concerning the remand of the case to the NLRC for reception of additional evidence at the instance of the respondent, we hold that the CA committed a reversible error. Although, as a rule, the submission to the NLRC of additional evidence like documents and affidavits is not prohibited, so that the NLRC may properly consider such evidence for the first time on appeal,33 the circumstances of the case did not justify the application of the rule herein.
Confronted with the conflicting claims on MMPI’s gross revenue realized in 1999, the question is which evidence must be given more weight?
The resolution of the question requires the re-examination and calibration of evidence.35 Such re-examination and calibration, being of a factual nature, ordinarily lies beyond the purview of the Court’s authority in this appeal. Yet, because the documents are already before the Court, we hereby treat the situation as an exception in order to resolve the question promptly and finally instead of still remanding the case to the CA for the re- evaluation and calibration.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES AND SETS ASIDE the amended decision promulgated on November 19, 2003; ENTERS a new decision granting respondent Margaret A. Defensor’s claim for outright commissions in the amount of P181,083.12 and special incentive bonus of P8,500.00, or a total of P189,583.12; and DIRECTS petitioner Mega Magazine Publications, Inc. to pay the costs of suit.
Sereno, C.J, Leonardo-De Castro, *Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
* Vice Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., who penned the decision under review, per the raffle of September 26, 2011.
1Rollo, pp. 58-74; penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña, III (retired).
29 See Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., G.R. No. 168654, March 25, 2009, 582 SCRA 417, 429.
30Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Lepanto Ceramics Employees Association, G.R. No. 180866, March 2, 2010, 614 SCRA 63, 71.
32Rollo, p. 108; emphasis supplied.
33Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 4th Division, G.R. No. 176240, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 670, 686-687.
35Reyes v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 487, 494.
36 House of Sara Lee v. Rey, G.R. No. 149013, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 419, 435.
37Javier v. Fly Ace Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 382, 395.
38Uy v. Centro Ceramica Corporation, G.R. No. 174631, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 604, 618; Mobile Protective & Detective Agency v. Ompad, G.R. No. 159195, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 308, 323.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.