Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
ABDULJUAHID R.
PIGCAULAN,⃰ |
|
G.R. No. 173648 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
DEL CASTILLO, |
|
|
|
ABAD,⃰ ⃰ and |
|
SECURITY and CREDIT INVESTIGATION, INC.
and/or RENE AMBY REYES , |
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
January 16, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
DEL
CASTILLO, J.:
It is not for an
employee to prove non-payment of benefits to which he is entitled by law. Rather, it is on the employer that
the burden of proving payment of these claims rests.
This
Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails
the February 24, 2006 Decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85515, which granted the petition for certiorari filed therewith, set aside
the March 23, 2004[3]
and June 14, 2004[4]
Resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and dismissed
the complaint filed by Oliver R. Canoy (Canoy) and petitioner Abduljuahid R.
Pigcaulan (Pigcaulan) against respondent Security and Credit Investigation,
Inc. (SCII) and its General Manager, respondent Rene Amby Reyes. Likewise assailed is the June 28, 2006
Resolution[5] denying Canoys
and Pigcaulans Motion for Reconsideration.[6]
Factual
Antecedents
Canoy and Pigcaulan were both
employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to SCIIs different
clients. Subsequently, however, Canoy
and Pigcaulan filed with the Labor Arbiter separate complaints[7] for
underpayment of salaries and non-payment of overtime, holiday, rest day,
service incentive leave and 13th month pays.
These complaints were later on consolidated as they involved the same
causes of action.
Canoy and Pigcaulan, in support of
their claim, submitted their respective daily time records reflecting the
number of hours served and their wages for the same. They likewise presented itemized lists of
their claims for the corresponding periods served.
Respondents,
however, maintained that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid their just salaries and
other benefits under the law; that the salaries they received were above the
statutory minimum wage and the rates provided by the Philippine Association of
Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) for security guards; that
their holiday pay were already included in the computation of their monthly
salaries; that they were paid additional premium of 30% in addition to their
basic salary whenever they were required to work on Sundays and 200% of their
salary for work done on holidays; and, that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid the
corresponding 13th month pay for the years 1998 and 1999. In support thereof, copies of payroll listings[8] and
lists of employees who received their 13th month pay for the periods
December 1997 to November 1998 and December 1998 to November 1999[9] were
presented. In addition, respondents
contended that Canoys and Pigcaulans monetary claims should only be limited
to the past three years of employment pursuant to the rule on prescription of
claims.
Ruling
of the Labor Arbiter
Giving credence to the itemized
computations and representative daily time records submitted by Canoy and
Pigcaulan, Labor Arbiter Manuel P.
Asuncion awarded them their monetary claims in his Decision[10] dated
June 6, 2002. The Labor Arbiter held
that the payroll listings presented by the respondents did not prove that Canoy
and Pigcaulan were duly paid as same were not signed by the latter or by any
SCII officer. The 13th month
payroll was, however, acknowledged as sufficient proof of payment, for it bears
Canoys and Pigcaulans signatures. Thus, without indicating any detailed
computation of the judgment award, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and proportionate 13th
month pay for the year 2000 in favor of Canoy and Pigcaulan, viz:
WHEREFORE, the respondents are hereby
ordered to pay the complainants: 1) their salary differentials in the amount of
P166,849.60 for Oliver Canoy and P121,765.44 for Abduljuahid
Pigcaulan; 2) the sum of P3,075.20 for Canoy and P2,449.71 for
Pigcaulan for service incentive leave pay and; [3]) the sum of P1,481.85
for Canoy and P1,065.35 for Pigcaulan as proportionate 13th
month pay for the year 2000. The rest of the claims are dismissed for lack of
sufficient basis to make an award.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Ruling
of the National Labor Relations Commission
Respondents
appealed to the NLRC. They
alleged that there was no basis
for
the awards made because aside from the self-serving itemized computations, no
representative daily time record was presented by Canoy and Pigcaulan. On the contrary, respondents asserted that the
payroll listings they submitted should have been given more probative value. To strengthen their cause, they attached to
their Memorandum on Appeal payrolls[12] bearing
the individual signatures of Canoy and Pigcaulan to show that the latter have
received their salaries, as well as copies of transmittal letters[13] to the
bank to show that the salaries reflected in the payrolls were directly
deposited to the ATM accounts of SCIIs employees.
The
NLRC, however, in a Resolution[14] dated
March 23, 2004, dismissed the appeal and held that the evidence show
underpayment of salaries as well as non-payment of service incentive leave
benefit. Accordingly, the Labor
Arbiters Decision was sustained. The motion
for reconsideration thereto was likewise dismissed by the NLRC in a Resolution[15] dated
June 14, 2004.
Ruling
of the Court of Appeals
In respondents petition for certiorari
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction[16]
before the CA, they attributed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC in finding that Canoy and Pigcaulan are entitled to salary differentials,
service incentive leave pay and proportionate 13th month pay and in
arriving at amounts without providing sufficient bases therefor.
The
CA, in its Decision[17] dated
February 24, 2006, set aside the rulings of
both
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC after noting that there were no factual and
legal bases mentioned in the questioned rulings to support the conclusions
made. Consequently, it dismissed all the
monetary claims of Canoy and Pigcaulan on the following rationale:
First. The Labor Arbiter disregarded the NLRC rule
that, in cases involving money awards and at all events, as far as practicable,
the decision shall embody the detailed and full amount awarded.
Second.
The Labor Arbiter found that the payrolls submitted by SCII have no
probative value for being unsigned by Canoy, when, in fact, said payrolls,
particularly the payrolls from 1998 to 1999 indicate the individual signatures
of Canoy.
Third. The Labor Arbiter did not state in his
decision the substance of the evidence adduced by Pigcaulan and Canoy as well
as the laws or jurisprudence that would show that the two are indeed entitled
to the salary differential and incentive leave pays.
Fourth. The Labor Arbiter held Reyes liable
together with SCII for the payment of the claimed salaries and benefits despite
the absence of proof that Reyes deliberately or maliciously designed to evade
SCIIs alleged financial obligation; hence the Labor Arbiter ignored that SCII
has a corporate personality separate and distinct from Reyes. To justify
solidary liability, there must be an allegation and showing that the officers
of the corporation deliberately or maliciously designed to evade the financial
obligation of the corporation.[18]
Canoy and Pigcaulan filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, but same was denied by the CA in a Resolution[19] dated
June 28, 2006.
Hence, the present Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
Issues
The petition ascribes upon the CA the
following errors:
I. The
Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the complaint on mere
alleged failure of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to observe the prescribed
form of decision, instead of remanding the case for reformation of the decision
to include the desired detailed computation.
II. The
Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it [made] complainants suffer the
consequences of the alleged non-observance by the Labor Arbiter and NLRC of the
prescribed forms of decisions considering that they have complied with all
needful acts required to support their claims.
III. The
Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the complaint allegedly due
to absence of legal and factual [bases] despite attendance of substantial
evidence in the records.[20]
It is
well to note that while the caption of the petition reflects both the names of
Canoy and Pigcaulan as petitioners, it appears from its body that it is being
filed solely by Pigcaulan. In fact, the
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was executed by Pigcaulan
alone.
In
his Petition, Pigcaulan submits that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are not
strictly bound by the rules. And even
so, the rules do not mandate that a detailed computation of how the amount
awarded was arrived at should be embodied in the decision. Instead, a statement of the nature or a description
of the amount awarded and the specific figure of the same will suffice. Besides, his and Canoys claims were supported
by substantial evidence in the form of the handwritten detailed computations
which the Labor Arbiter termed as representative daily time records, showing
that they were not properly compensated for work rendered. Thus, the CA should have remanded the case
instead of outrightly dismissing it.
In
their Comment,[21]
respondents point out that since it was only Pigcaulan who filed the petition,
the CA Decision has already become final and binding upon Canoy. As to Pigcaulans arguments, respondents
submit that they were able to present sufficient evidence to prove payment of
just salaries and benefits, which bits of evidence were unfortunately ignored
by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Fittingly,
the CA reconsidered these pieces of evidence and properly appreciated
them. Hence, it was correct in
dismissing the claims for failure of Canoy and Pigcaulan to discharge their
burden to disprove payment.
Pigcaulan,
this time joined by Canoy, asserts in his Reply[22] that his
filing of the present petition redounds likewise to Canoys benefit since their
complaints were consolidated below. As
such, they maintain that any kind of disposition made in favor or against
either of them would inevitably apply to the other. Hence, the institution of the petition solely
by Pigcaulan does not render the assailed Decision final as to Canoy. Nonetheless, in said reply they appended
Canoys affidavit[23] where
he verified under oath the contents and allegations of the petition filed by
Pigcaulan and also attested to the authenticity of its annexes. Canoy, however, failed to certify that he had
not filed any action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same
issues. He likewise explains in said
affidavit that his absence during the preparation and filing of the petition
was caused by severe financial distress and his failure to inform anyone of his
whereabouts.
Our
Ruling
The assailed CA
Decision is considered final as to Canoy.
We
have examined the petition and find that same was filed by Pigcaulan solely on
his own behalf. This is very clear from
the petitions prefatory which is phrased as follows:
COMES NOW Petitioner Abduljuahid R.
Pigcaulan, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Also,
under the heading Parties, only Pigcaulan is mentioned as petitioner and
consistent with this, the body of the petition refers only to a petitioner
and never in its plural form petitioners. Aside
from the fact that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached
to the petition was executed by Pigcaulan alone, it was plainly and particularly
indicated under the name of the lawyer who prepared the same, Atty. Josefel P.
Grageda, that he is the Counsel for Petitioner Adbuljuahid Pigcaulan
only. In view of these, there is
therefore, no doubt, that the petition was brought only on behalf of
Pigcaulan. Since no appeal from the CA
Decision was brought by Canoy, same has already become final and executory as
to him.
Canoy cannot now simply incorporate
in his affidavit a verification of the contents and allegations of the petition
as he is not one of the petitioners therein.
Suffice it to state that it would have been different had the said
petition been filed in behalf of both Canoy and Pigcaulan. In such a case, subsequent submission of a
verification may be allowed as non-compliance therewith or a defect therein
does not necessarily render the pleading, or the petition as in this case,
fatally defective.[24] The court may order its submission or
correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of
justice may be served thereby. Further,
a verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct.[25]
However, even if it were so, we note that Canoy still
failed to submit or at least incorporate in his affidavit a certificate of
non-forum shopping.
The
filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory so much so
that
non-compliance could only be tolerated by special circumstances and compelling
reasons.[26] This Court has held that when there are
several petitioners, all of them must execute and sign the certification
against forum shopping; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case.[27] True, we held that in some cases, execution by
only one of the petitioners on behalf of the other petitioners constitutes
substantial compliance with the rule on the filing of a certificate of
non-forum shopping on the ground of common interest or common cause of action
or defense.[28]
We, however, find that common interest
is not present in the instant petition. To
recall, Canoys and Pigcaulans complaints were consolidated because they both
sought the same reliefs against the same respondents. This does not, however, mean that they share a
common interest or defense. The evidence
required to substantiate their claims may not be the same. A particular evidence which could sustain
Canoys action may not effectively serve as sufficient to support Pigcaulans
claim.
Besides,
assuming that the petition is also filed on his behalf, Canoy failed to show
any reasonable cause for his failure to join Pigcaulan to personally sign the Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping. It is his duty,
as a litigant, to be prudent in pursuing his claims against SCII, especially
so, if he was indeed suffering from financial distress. However, Canoy failed to advance any
justifiable reason why he did not inform anyone of his whereabouts when he
knows that he has a pending case against his former employer. Sadly, his lack of prudence and diligence
cannot merit the courts consideration or sympathy. It must be emphasized at this point that
procedural rules should not be ignored simply because their non-observance may
result in prejudice to a partys substantial rights. The Rules of Court should be followed except
only for the most persuasive of reasons.[29]
Having
declared the present petition as solely filed by Pigcaulan, this Court shall
consider the subsequent pleadings, although apparently filed under his and
Canoys name, as solely filed by the former.
There was no substantial
evidence to support the grant of overtime pay.
The Labor Arbiter ordered
reimbursement of overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th
month pay for the year 2000 in favor of Canoy and Pigcaulan. The Labor Arbiter relied heavily on the
itemized computations they submitted which he considered as representative
daily time records to substantiate the award of salary differentials. The NLRC then sustained the award on the
ground that there was substantial evidence of underpayment of salaries and
benefits.
We find that both the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC erred in this regard. The
handwritten itemized computations are self-serving, unreliable and unsubstantial
evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime
pay. Unsigned and unauthenticated as they
are, there is no way of verifying the truth of the handwritten entries stated
therein. Written only in pieces of paper
and solely prepared by Canoy and Pigcaulan, these representative daily time
records, as termed by the Labor Arbiter, can hardly be considered as competent
evidence to be used as basis to prove that the two were underpaid of their
salaries. We find nothing in the records
which could substantially support Pigcaulans contention that he had rendered
service beyond eight hours to entitle him to overtime pay and during Sundays to
entitle him to restday pay. Hence, in
the absence of any concrete proof that additional service beyond the normal
working hours and days had indeed been rendered, we cannot affirm the grant of
overtime pay to Pigcaulan.
Pigcaulan is entitled
to holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and proportionate 13th
month pay for year 2000.
However, with respect to the award
for holiday pay, service incentive leave
pay
and 13th month pay, we affirm and rule that Pigcaulan is entitled to
these benefits.
Article 94 of the Labor Code
provides that:
ART. 94. RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY. (a)
Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays,
except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
(10) workers;
x x x x
While Article 95 of the Labor
Code provides:
ART. 95. RIGHT TO SERVICE
INCENTIVE LEAVE. (a)
Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled
to a yearly service incentive of five days with pay.
x x x x
Under
the Labor Code, Pigcaulan is entitled to his regular rate on holidays even if
he does not work.[30] Likewise, express provision of the law
entitles him to service incentive leave benefit for he rendered service for
more than a year already. Furthermore,
under Presidential Decree No. 851,[31] he
should be paid his 13th month pay. As employer, SCII has the burden of proving
that it has paid these benefits to its employees.[32]
SCII
presented payroll listings and transmittal letters to the bank to show that Canoy
and Pigcaulan received their salaries as well as benefits which it claimed are
already integrated in the employees monthly salaries. However, the documents
presented do not prove SCIIs allegation. SCII failed to show any other concrete proof
by means of records, pertinent files or similar documents reflecting that the
specific claims have been paid. With
respect to 13th month pay, SCII presented proof that this benefit
was paid but only for the years 1998 and 1999. To repeat, the burden of proving payment of
these monetary claims rests on SCII, being the employer. It is a rule that one who pleads payment has
the burden of proving it. Even when the
plaintiff alleges non-payment, still the general rule is that the burden rests
on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove
non-payment.[33]
Since SCII failed to provide convincing
proof that it has already settled the claims, Pigcaulan should be paid his
holiday pay, service incentive leave benefits and proportionate 13th
month pay for the year 2000.
The CA erred in
dismissing the claims instead of remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for a
detailed computation of the judgment award.
Indeed, the Labor Arbiter failed to
provide sufficient basis for the monetary
awards
granted. Such failure, however, should not result in prejudice to the
substantial rights of the party. While
we disallow the grant of overtime pay and restday pay in favor of Pigcaulan, he
is nevertheless entitled, as a matter of right, to his holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for year 2000. Hence, the CA is not correct in dismissing
Pigcaulans claims in its entirety.
Consistent with the rule that all money
claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed within
three years from the time the cause of action accrued,[34]
Pigcaulan can only demand the amounts due him for the period within three years
preceding the filing of the complaint in 2000. Furthermore, since the records are
insufficient to use as bases to properly compute Pigcaulans claims, the case
should be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for a detailed computation of the
monetary benefits due to him.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is
GRANTED.
The Decision dated
February
24, 2006 and Resolution dated June 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 85515 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Petitioner Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan is hereby declared entitled
to holiday pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 1997-2000 and
proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2000.
The case is REMANDED to the
Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the exact amount and to make
a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan
which Security and Credit Investigation Inc. should pay without delay.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
⃰ Originally captioned as Oliver Canoy and Abduljuahid Pigcaulan,
petitioners vs. Security and Credit
Investigation Inc. and/or Rene Amby Reyes, respondents. The Court, however,
drops Oliver Canoy from the caption consistent with the Courts ruling herein.
⃰
⃰ Per raffle dated
January 10, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 10-26.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 219-225; penned by Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mario L. Guaria III.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Canoys complaint was docketed as NLRC-NCR
Case No. 00-03-01409-2000 while Pigcaulans complaint was docketed as NLRC-NCR
Case No. 00-03-01782-2000.
[8] Annex 1 of SCIIs Position Paper, CA rollo, pp. 59-63 and 70-76.
[9] Annex 2 of SCIIs Position Paper, id. at 64-65 and 77-78.
[10]
[11]
[12] Annex 2-2-OO of SCIIs Memorandum on Appeal, id. at 101-142.
[13] Annex 4-31 of SCIIs Memorandum on Appeal, id. at 150-205.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo, p. 18.
[21]
[22]
[23] Annex A of the petitioners Reply, id. at 62-63.
[24]
[25]
[26] Mandaue Galleon Trade, Inc. v. Isidto,
G.R. No. 181051,
[27] Traveo v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27, 36 citing Altres v. Empleo, G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 583, 597.
[28] Northeastern College Teachers and Employees Association v. Northeastern College, Inc., G.R. No. 152923, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 149, 179; Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr., G.R. No. 146548, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 394, 406-407.
[29] Pyro Copper Mining Corporation v. Mines Adjudication Board-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 179674, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 195, 211-212.
[30] Labadan v. Forest Hills Academy, G.R. No. 172295, December 23, 2008, 575 SCRA 262, 268.
[31] Requiring All Employers To Pay Their Employees A 13th-Month Pay.
[32] Saberola v. Suarez, G.R. No. 151227,
[33]
[34] Labor Code, Article 291.