WILGEN LOON, JERRY ARCILLA, ALBERT PEREYE, ARNOLD
PEREYE, EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS, PATROCINO TOETIN, EVELYN LEONARDO, ELMER
GLOCENDA, RUFO CUNAMAY, ROLANDO SAJOL, ROLANDO ABUCAYON, JENNIFER NATIVIDAD,
MARITESS TORION, ARMANDO LONZAGA, RIZAL GELLIDO, EVIRDE HAQUE, MYRNA VINAS,
RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, RENATO RODREGO, NENE ABINA, EMALYN OLIVEROS,
LOUIE ILAGAN, JOSE ENTIG, ARNEL ARANETA, BENJAMIN COSE, WELITO LOON and WILLIAM
ALIPAO, petitioners vs. POWER MASTER INC., TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, and SPOUSES
HOMER and CARINA ALUMISIN, respondents
GR No. 189404 | December 11, 2013
TOPIC:
Holidays, SIL, and Service Charge
FACTS:
Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C
General Services employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen
in various PLDT offices in Metro Manila. The petitioners alleged that they were
not paid minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave,
and 13th month pays. They further averred that respondents made them
sign blank payroll sheets. On June 11, 2001, they amended their complaint and
included illegal dismissal therein. They claimed that respondents relieved them
from service in retaliation.
On March 15, 2002, the LA partially ruled
in favor of the petitioners. The LA awarded the petitioners salary
differential, service incentive leave, and 13th month pays. In
awarding these claims, the LA stated that the burden of proving payment of
these money claims rests with the employer. The LA also awarded attorney’s fees
in favor of the petitioners. However, the petitioner’s claims for backwages,
overtime, holiday, and premium pays were denied by the LA. The LA observed that
the petitioners failed to show that they rendered overtime worked and worked on
holidays and rest days without compensation. The LA further concluded that the
petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from employment because
they did not show any notice of termination of employment nor were they barred
from entering the respondents’ premises.
On appeal in the NLRC, the respondents
claimed that they paid the petitioners minimum wages, service incentive leave
and 13th month pays. As proofs, they attached photocopied and
computerized copies of payroll sheets to their memorandum on appeal. They
further argued that the petitioners were validly dismissed because their
repeated defiance to their transfer to different workplaces and their
violations of the company rules and regulations constituted serious misconduct
and willful disobedience.
On January 3, 2003, the respondents filed
an unverified supplemental appeal. They attached to it photocopied and
computerized copies of list of employees with ATM cards. The list also showed
the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ ATM cards.
The NLRC affirmed the LA’s awards of
holiday pay and attorney’s fees. However, it overturned the LA’s awards of
salary differential, 13th month and service incentive leave pays. In
so ruling, it gave weight to the pieces of evidence attached to the memorandum
on appeal and the supplemental appeal. It maintained that the absence of the
petitioners’ signatures in the payrolls was not an indispensable factor for
their authenticity. It pointed out that the payment of money claims was further
evidenced by the list of employees with ATM cards. The NLRC further ruled that
the petitioners were lawfully dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct. It
found that the petitioners failed to comply with various memoranda directing
them to transfer to other workplaces and to attend training seminars for the
intended reorganization and reshuffling.
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling and
upheld the NLRC’s findings on the petitioners’ monetary claims.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to
salary differential, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and
13th month pay
RULING:
The Court reversed the NLRC’s finding that
the petitioners are not entitled to salary differential, service incentive,
holiday, and 13th month pays. The general rule is that the burden
rests on the employer to prove payment rather on the plaintiff to prove
nonpayment of these money claims. The rationale for this rule is that the
pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents — which will show that differentials, service incentive leave and
other claims of workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the
worker but are in the custody and control of the employer.
However, the Court ruled that petitioners
are not entitled to overtime and premium pays. The CA was correct in its
finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual basis for the
award of overtime, and premium pays for holidays and rest days. The burden of
proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days
rests on the employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of
business. In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence
that would show that they actually rendered service in excess of the regular
eight working hours a day, and that they in fact worked on holidays and rest
days.
Comments
Post a Comment