|
G & M
(Phil.), Inc.,
Petitioner, -versus- ZENAS RIVERA,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 141802 Present: pUNO, CJ., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before
us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
dated September 13, 1999 and Resolution[2]
dated January 13, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
51454, entitled “G & M (Phil.) Inc., petitioner, v. National Labor
Relations Commission and Zenas Rivera, respondents.”
G &
M (Phil.), Inc., petitioner, is a corporation engaged in the placement and
recruitment business of overseas contract workers. It deployed Lorenzo Rivera, respondent’s husband, to work as equipment driver
for its foreign principal, Mohammad Al-Hammad Recruiting Office in
Respondent
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unpaid salary differentials for
her late husband alleging that he was not paid his salary for 23 days before he
died. She submitted a “Final Settlement of Liability
of Foreign Employer” bearing the seal of the Philippine Embassy at
|
Entitlement 1. Pending Leave Days 2. Severance Pay (service award) 3. Unpaid Salary 23 days 4. Death Compensation |
Amount SR
570.00 Months Days 19
17 SR 896.81 SR 843.33 __________
TOTAL SR 2,310.14 |
Respondent
further claimed that her husband actually received only a monthly salary of SR
700, way below than that he ought to receive under his contract of employment
which is US$ 600.
For its
part, petitioner assailed the genuineness of the Final Settlement for lack of proper
authentication. It pointed out that petitioner’s
allegation that her husband received only a monthly salary of SR 700 is
inconsistent with the claim for unpaid salaries as it is not possible for a
worker receiving SR 700 per month to have unpaid salaries in the amount of SR
843.33 for 23 days. It likewise questioned respondent’s basis for filing the complaint,
she not being a privy to her husband’s working conditions while abroad.
In a
Decision dated
a)
Unpaid
salary
= US $
23.08 per day
= US $
23.08 x 23 working days
= US $ 530.84 or its peso equivalent its
======== actual payment
b)
Salary
Differential
US $ 600 x P26 = P
15,600.00
SR 700 x 6.5 = P 4,550.00
per month P 10,050.00
x 19
Total
P
190,950.00
c)
Plus 10%
of the total award for and as attorney’s fees.
On
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered a Decision on
Petitioner
then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that
the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining respondent’s claims.
In a Decision
dated
The OCW INFO SHEET clearly states that the beneficiary of Lorenzo
Rivera is his wife Zenas Rivera, hence, the complainant in this case is the
real party in interest because “she stands to be benefited by the judgment in
this suit or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit” (Salonga v. Warner, Barnes & Co., LTD.,
L-2246, Jan. 31, 1951).
In the same manner, the OCW INFO SHEET reveals that Lorenzo Rivera
ought to receive US $600.00 basic monthly salary. Since respondent’s foreign principal keeps
and maintains the employment records, it is therefore incumbent upon the respondent
to produce the payrolls and vouchers to prove that complainant’s deceased
husband was duly paid of his basic monthly salary. Accordingly, whether the “Final Settlement”
adduced as supporting evidence by complainant is genuine or fake does not
overcome the rule that the burden on labor standards claim rests upon the
employer.
Failure therefore on the part of the respondent to offer such payrolls
and vouchers to controvert complainant’s claim for salary differentials is
fatal.
The same ruling holds true with respect to claim for unpaid salary for
23 days. (p. 32, Rollo)
As to petitioner’s
allegation of inconsistency between the monthly salary of respondent’s husband appearing in the OCW
Information Sheet and the claim of respondent that her husband is still entitled
to a salary of SR 843.33 for 23 days, the appellate court found that “this
discrepancy is explained by the fact that aside from his monthly salary of SR
700, the deceased is still entitled to a monthly food allowance of SR 200 and
monthly overtime pay of SR 200.”
The Court
of Appeals further held:
On the other hand, petitioner was the one who failed to show that
complainant’s husband has received the salary provided for under his OCW Info
Sheet and OEC when the petitioner and its foreign principals were the ones who
keep and maintain the employment document of the deceased Rivera, such as the
payrolls, the vouchers and were in the best position to show that indeed the
deceased received his monthly salary of US $600.00 as per POEA approved
contract.
Petitioner even failed to present any document/evidence to show/prove
its contention of payment so, in the absence of such evidence, it can be safely
concluded that the deceased was not paid his monthly salary as per POEA
approved contract and his unpaid salaries were not given to him.
Petitioner
filed the instant Petition for Review alleging that: (1) the Court of Appeals gravely
erred in applying the rule on “burden of proof” against petitioner inasmuch as
non-payment of salaries, as claimed by respondent was not sufficiently shown; and in
holding that there is no inconsistency between the salary of petitioner’s
husband appearing in the OCW Information Sheet and in the Final Settlement
considering that no evidence supports such conclusion.
The
issues raised are essentially factual.
Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of
facts. Judicial review of labor cases
does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which
its labor officials’ findings rest. As
such, the findings of fact and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded
not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding
on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[3] This is because it is not the function of
this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered
in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or
substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has
expertise in its special field. In this
case, we defer to the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, who is deemed to
have acquired expertise in matters within his jurisdiction, specially since his
findings were affirmed in toto by the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[4]
While
there are recognized exceptions to this rule, we found no grounds to warrant
our departure from the common findings of the three tribunals below.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM
the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51454. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria (all retired), Annex “A” of the petition, Rollo, pp. 20-27.
[2] Annex “B” of the petition, id., pp. 28-30.
[3] Association
of Integrated Security Force of Bislig (AISFB-ALU) v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 140150,
[4] Bolinao
Security and Investigation, Inc. v. Toston, G.R. No. 139135, January 29,
2004, 421 SCRA 406; Urbanes, Jr. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 138379, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 84.