Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
Romeo
Basay, Julian |
|
G.R. No. 175532 |
|
LITERAL
and Julian Abueva, |
|
|
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
Hacienda
Consolacion,
|
|
CARPIO, J., Chairperson, |
|
and/or Bruno Bouffard III, |
|
BRION, |
|
JOSE RAMON BOUFFARD, |
|
|
|
Malot
Bouffard, |
|
ABAD, and |
|
SPOUSES CARMEN and |
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
STEVE BUMANLAG, |
|
|
|
BERNIE BOUFFARD, |
|
|
|
ANALYN BOUFFARD, and |
|
|
|
DONA BOUFFARD, as Owners, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
April 19, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before employers
are burdened to prove that they did not commit illegal dismissal, it is
incumbent upon the employee to first establish the fact of his or her dismissal.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
assails the Decision[2]
dated June 7, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00313, which
affirmed the March 22, 2004 Decision[3]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dismissing the illegal
dismissal case filed by petitioners against respondents.
Factual
Antecedents
Respondents hired petitioners Romeo
Basay (Basay) in 1967 and Julian Literal (Literal) in 1984, as tractor
operators, and petitioner Julian Abueva (Abueva) in 1989, as laborer, in the
hacienda devoted for sugar cane plantation.
On
Respondents denied petitioners’
allegations. As regards Abueva, respondents averred that he is not an employee
but a mere contractor in the hacienda.
According to respondents, Abueva hired other men to perform weeding jobs
and even entered into contract with neighboring haciendas for similar jobs.
Respondents alleged that Abueva’s name does not appear in the payroll, thus
indicating that he is not an employee. As such, there can be no dismissal to speak
of, much less an illegal dismissal.
With regard to petitioners Literal
and Basay, respondents admitted that both are regular employees, each receiving
P130.00 per day’s work as evidenced by a Master Voucher.[5]
However, respondents denied having illegally dismissed them and asserted that they
abandoned their jobs.
Respondents alleged
that Literal was facing charges of misconduct, insubordination, damaging and
taking advantage of hacienda property, and unauthorized cultivation of a
portion of the hacienda. Literal was
ordered to explain; instead of complying, Literal did not anymore report for
work. Instead, he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Respondents
asserted that they sent a representative to convince petitioners to return but
to no avail. Respondents maintained that
they have been religiously giving 13th month pay to their employees
as evidenced by a voucher[6]
corresponding to year 2000.
Ruling of the
Labor Arbiter
On
WHEREFORE,
all the foregoing premises being considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the Respondent not guilty of Illegal Dismissal but is however
directed to pay the complainants their 13th Month Pay covering the
years 1998 and 1999, and their Salary Differentials for 2 years at 6 months per
year of service. The computation of the foregoing monetary awards are as
follows:
I
- 13th Month Pay: (For Each Complainant)
1998
& 1999 = 2 years or 12 months @ 6 months per year of service
P145.00/day
x 26 days = P3,770.00/mo.
P3,770.00/mo.
x 12 mos. = P45,240.00=
P7,540.00
6
II – Salary Differential:
(a)
Romeo Basay:
Basic Pay = P145.00/day
Salary Received = P122.00/day
Salary Differential = P 23.00/day
1998 & 1999 = 2 years or 312 days
P23.00/day
x 312 days = P7,176.00
(b)
Julian
Literal:
Basic Pay = P145.00/day
Salary Received = P
91.00/day
Salary Differential = P 54.00/day
1998 & 1999 = 2 years or 312 days
P54.00/day
x 312 days = P16,848.00
(c)
Julian
Abueva:
Basic Pay = P145.00/day
Salary Received = P 91.50/day
Salary Differential = P 53.50/day
1998 & 1999 = 2 years or 312 days
P53.50/day
x 312 days = P16, 692.00
SUMMARY
1.
ROMEO BASAY:
a) 13th Month Pay = P7,540.00
b) Salary Differential = P7,176.00
Total P14,716.00
2.
JULIAN
LITERAL
a) 13th Month Pay = P
7,540.00
b) Salary Differential = P16,848.00
Total P24,388.00
3.
JULIAN ABUEVA
a) 13th Month Pay = P
7,540.00
b) Salary Differential = P16,692.00
Total P24,232.00
GRAND TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P63,336.00
Ten Percent (10%) Attorney’s Fees is also
adjudicated from the total monetary award.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Ruling of the
National Labor Relations Commission
Both parties sought recourse to the
NLRC. Petitioners filed a Partial Appeal[9]
to the Decision declaring respondents not guilty of illegal dismissal. They argued that there was no proof of clear
and deliberate intent to abandon their work.
On the contrary, their filing of an illegal dismissal case negates the
intention to abandon. Petitioners
likewise alleged that respondents failed to observe procedural due process.
Respondents, for their part, filed a
Memorandum on Appeal[10]
with respect to the award of salary differentials and 13th month pay
to petitioners. Respondents averred that
the Labor Arbiter erred in finding that petitioners are entitled to receive a
minimum wage of P145.00/day instead of P130.00/day which is the
minimum wage rate for sugarcane workers in Negros Oriental per Wage Order No.
ROVII-07.[11] Respondents
likewise presented vouchers[12]
to prove payment of 13th month pay for the years 1998 and 1999.
The NLRC, in its Decision[13]
dated
WHEREFORE, finding complainants not illegally dismissed,
judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the Decision of the Labor Arbiter
dated
All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[15] which
was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution[16]
dated
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
Aggrieved, petitioners filed with
the CA a petition for certiorari. On
Petitioners moved for
reconsideration, but to no avail.
Issue
Hence, this petition raising the
issue of whether petitioners were illegally dismissed and are entitled to their
money claims.
Petitioners contend that the CA
erred in affirming the findings of the labor tribunals that they deliberately
abandoned their work on the basis of respondents’ self-serving allegation that they
sent emissaries to persuade them to return to work. They maintain that in the absence of competent
evidence to show clear intention to sever the employment relationship and
compliance with the two-notice rule, no abandonment can exist. Moreover, the
theory that abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint
for illegal dismissal is applicable in the present case since what was prayed
for in the complaint was reinstatement, contrary to the CA’s finding that they
were asking for separation pay. Petitioners likewise insist that the CA gravely
erred in holding that they assailed the admissibility of the Master Voucher for
the first time only during appeal. They
claim that such issue was raised in
their motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision. Finally, petitioners allege that the fact that
they were staying inside the premises of the hacienda and had been working therein
for more than a year is an indication that they are regular employees entitled
to their monetary claims, as correctly found by the Labor Arbiter.
Our Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
There
was no illegal dismissal.
We are not unmindful of the rule in
labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the termination
was for a valid or authorized cause; however, it is likewise incumbent upon the
employees that they should first establish by competent evidence the fact of their
dismissal from employment.[17]
The one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and the proof should be
clear, positive and convincing.[18]
In this case, aside from mere allegations,
no evidence was proffered by the petitioners that they were dismissed from employment.
The records are bereft of any indication
that petitioners were prevented from returning to work or otherwise deprived of
any work assignment by respondents.
The CA, in sustaining the Labor
Arbiter and NLRC’s finding that there was no illegal dismissal, ruled that respondents
have manifested their willingness to retain petitioners in their employ. Petitioners,
however, complained that this finding is anchored on mere allegations of
respondents.
We do not agree. Respondents presented a declaration[19]
made under oath by Leopoldo Utlang, Jr., assistant supervisor of the hacienda,
attesting that petitioners were asked to return to do some work for the
hacienda but refused to do so upon the advice of their lawyer. Interestingly too, as late as November of 2001
or even after almost three months from the filing of the illegal dismissal case,
the names of Literal and Basay were still listed and included in respondents’
payroll as can be gleaned in the Master Voucher covering the employees’ payroll
of November 12 to 16, 2001. While a voucher does not necessarily prove payment,
it is an acceptable documentary record of a business transaction.[20]
As such, entries made therein, being entered in the ordinary or regular course
of business, enjoy the presumption of regularity.[21]
Hence, on the basis of this material proof evincing respondents’ intention to
retain petitioners as employees, we are not convinced that petitioners were told
to stop working or were prevented from working in the hacienda. This may well
be an indication of respondents’ lack of intention to dismiss petitioners from
employment since they were still considered employees as of that time. Records are likewise bereft of any showing
that to date, respondents had already terminated petitioners from employment.
We are not persuaded by petitioners’
contention that nothing was presented to establish their intention of
abandoning their work, or that the fact that they filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal negates the theory of abandonment.
It bears emphasizing
that this case does not involve termination of employment on the ground of
abandonment. As earlier discussed, there
is no evidence showing that petitioners were actually dismissed. Petitioners’
filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, irrespective of whether
reinstatement or separation pay was prayed for, could not by itself be the sole
consideration in determining whether they have been illegally dismissed. All circumstances surrounding the alleged
termination should also be taken into account.
In Abad v.
Roselle Cinema,[22]
we ruled that the substantial evidence proffered by the employer that it had
not terminated the employee should not be ignored on the pretext that the
employee would not have filed the complaint for illegal dismissal if he had not
really been dismissed. We held that such non sequitur reasoning cannot
take the place of the evidence of both the employer and the employee.
Given that there was no dismissal to
speak of, there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof.
Basay and Literal are entitled to
salary differentials for two years and proportionate 13th month pay
from January 1-29, 2001. Abueva is not an employee, thus not entitled to his
claims.
We agree with the petitioners that the
issue on the admissibility of the Master Voucher, which does not show that they
actually received the amount of salary indicated therein, was raised in their
motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision dated March 22, 2004 where the labor
tribunal ruled that petitioners were duly compensated for their work on the
basis of such voucher. At any rate, even
if its admission as evidence is not put into issue, still, the Master Voucher
did not prove that petitioners were indeed paid the correct amount of wages.
A perusal of the
Master Voucher shows that it covers the employees’ payroll for the period of P130.00/day. The correct computation for the salary
differentials due to Basay and Literal, who claimed to have received only P122.00
and P91.00 per day, respectively, should be as follows:
For ROMEO BASAY:
Basic Pay = P130.00/day
Salary Received = P122.00/day
Salary
Differential = P
8.00/day
P8.00/day x 312
days (for 1998 & 1999) = P2,496.00
For JULIAN LITERAL:
Basic Pay = P130.00/day
Salary Received = P 91.00/day
Salary
Differential = P
39.00/day
P39.00/day x 312
days (for 1998 & 1999) = P12,168.00
As regards the
13th month pay, respondents were able to adduce evidence that the benefit
was given to the employees for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. However, for an employee who has been
separated from service before the time for payment of the 13th month
pay, he is entitled to this monetary benefit in proportion to the length of
time he worked during the year, reckoned from the time he started working
during the calendar year up to the time of his separation.[24]
The NLRC’s award of proportionate 13th
month pay computed from
As for petitioner
Abueva, he is not entitled to his claims. The NLRC excluded Abueva in its judgment
award, ruling that he is not an employee but a mere contractor. The existence of an employer-employee
relationship is ultimately a question of fact.[25]
Settled is the rule that only errors of
law are generally reviewed by this Court.[26]
Factual findings of administrative and
quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially
when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[27]
The elements to determine the
existence of an employment relationship are: (1) selection and engagement of
the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the
employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct.[28]
In filing a complaint for illegal
dismissal, it is incumbent upon Abueva to prove the relationship by substantial
evidence.
In this regard, petitioners claim
that Abueva has worked with respondents for more than a year already and was
allowed to stay inside the hacienda. As
such, he is a regular employee entitled to monetary claims. However, petitioners have not presented
competent proof that respondents engaged the services of Abueva; that
respondents paid his wages or that respondents could dictate what his conduct
should be while at work. In other words,
Abueva’s allegations did not establish that his relationship with respondents
has the attributes of employer-employee on the basis of the above-mentioned four-fold
test. Therefore, Abueva was not able to
discharge the burden of proving the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Moreover, Abueva was not able to refute respondents’ assertions
that he hires other men to perform weeding job in the hacienda and that he is
not exclusively working for respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00313 dated
June 7, 2006, finding petitioners Romeo Basay, Julian Literal and Julian Abueva
not illegally dismissed and awarding petitioners Romeo Basay and Julian Literal
their proportionate 13th month pay computed from January 1, 2001 to
August 29, 2001, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the petitioners Romeo Basay and
Julian Literal are entitled to receive the amounts of P2,496.00 and P12,168.00
as salary differentials, respectively.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-37.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Voucher covering the payroll for the
period
[6] Voucher dated
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Annex “2” of Respondents’ Memorandum on
Appeal,
[12] Annex “3” of Respondents’ Memorandum on
Appeal,
[13] Supra note 3.
[14] Rollo, p. 141.
[15]
[16]
[17] Ledesma, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 174585, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 358, 370.
[18] Leopard Integrated Services, Inc. v.
Macalinao, G.R. No. 159808,
[19] Annex “4” of respondents’ Position Paper, rollo, p. 99.
[20] Alonzo v.
[21] See Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 43.
[22] G.R. No. 141371,
[23] Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 485 Phil. 248, 289 (2004).
[24] Mantle Trading Services, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 166705,
[25] Aklan v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R.
No. 168537,
[26] Lopez v.
[27] V.V. Aldaba Engineering v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 76925, September 26, 1994, 237 SCRA 31, 38-39.
[28] CRC Agricultural Trading v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 177664,