Friday, July 24, 2009

Ito ang HTML na salin ng http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/cardis/SP95464.pdf.
Kusang gumagawa ng mga html na salin ang G o o g l e para sa mga dokumento na nahanap namin sa web.
Page 1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Appeals
MANILA
THIRTEENTH DIVISION
RICHARD INVESTIGATION AND
SECURITY
AGENCY
and/or
TESSIE M. ENGAÑO,
Petitioners,
- versus -
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, HON. LUTRICIA
F. QUITEVIS-ALCONCEL and
RAFAEL MAURING,
Respondents.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464
Members:
ENRIQUEZ, JR., Chairman
VELOSO, and
GONZALES-SISON, JJ.
Promulgated:
AUG 13 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
ENRIQUEZ, JR., J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, which seeks to annul and set aside the
Decision rendered by Labor Arbiter Lutricia F. Quitevis-Alconcel (hereafter
Labor Arbiter), dated May 12, 2003 and the Resolutions of the National
Labor Relations Commission, dated April 17, 2006 and June 14, 2006. The
respective dispositive portions of which read as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents
Richard Investigation and Security Agency liable
for the underpayment of complainant’s two-month salary
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 2
D E C I S I O N
computer (sic) at twelve (12) hours per day less
P4,200.00, the amount complainant had already earlier
received in the total amount of Twenty Four Thousand
Six Hundred Fourteen Pesos and 60/100 (P24,614.60).
All other claims herein sought and prayed for are
hereby denied for lack of legal and factual bases.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby denied and
the Decision appealed from AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration
is DENIED for lack of merit. No further motion of the
same tenor shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
The facts of the case as culled from the records are as follows:
Petitioner Richard Investigation and Security Agency (hereafter
RISA) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing
investigation and security services. Private respondent Rafael Mauring
(hereafter Mauring), was employed as security guard by RISA.
On December 2, 2001, Mauring was assigned to secure the premises
of Pinagkamaligan Indo Agro Development Corporation (hereafter
PIADECO) situated at Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. He was required to
render twelve (12) hours of duty everyday, for seven (7) days a week, at a
salary of Three Hundred Seventy Five Pesos (P375.00) a day.
PIADECO experienced financial difficulties, thus, it failed to pay its
obligation with RISA under the contract for security services.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 3
D E C I S I O N
On January 2, 2002, RISA sent a letter to PIADECO’s
representatives, Mr. Rolando Ilao and Mr. Gener Naagas, informing that
they are withdrawing their security guards from the premises of PIADECO
due to their failure to pay for the services rendered by the security guards.
On October 28, 2004, Mauring filed a complaint for unpaid wages and
overtime pay against RISA and its General Manager, Tessie M. Engaño
(collectively referred to as petitioners), docketed as NLRC NCR Case
No. 00-02-01398-2002. In their answer, petitioners impleaded Mr. Rolando
Ilao and Mr. Gener Naagas as third party respondents.
Mauring alleged that his salary for the period of December 2, 2001 to
February 5, 2002 has not been paid by RISA. Petitioners averred that they
already severed their contractual relation with PIADECO on January 2,
2002, thus, they cannot be held liable for the services rendered by Mauring
beyond that date.
On May 12, 2003, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in the terms
earlier set forth.
On May 30, 2003, petitioners appealed the case to the NLRC,
docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 036014-03.
On April 17, 2006, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
On May 12, 2006, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
which was denied in a Resolution dated June 14, 2006.
Hence, the petition raising the sole issue:
PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT BASED ON THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TESTIMONIAL AND
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCES
ADDUCED
THE
RESPONDENT LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
ORDERING PETITIONER LIABLE (ANNEXES “A”
AND “B”) ARE CONSIDERED AS GRAVE ABUSE. THE
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 4
D E C I S I O N
SUPPOSED AWARD OF TWO (2) MONTH SALARY
COMPUTED AT TWELVE (12) HOURS PER DAY IS,
MOREOVER, NOT WARRANTED AND ALSO NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR MINIMUM WAGE AND
CONTRARY OF ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.
The petition is without merit.
As a rule, factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor
Arbiter, both bodies being deemed to have acquired expertise in matters
within their jurisdiction, are accorded respect, if not finality, and are
considered binding on this Court
(China Banking Corporation vs. Borromeo, 440
SCRA 621)
. Moreover, resort to a judicial review of the decisions of the
NLRC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court is confined only to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the rendering tribunal, board or office. It
does not include any inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of
evidence, which was the basis of the labor official or officer in determining
his conclusion
(German Machineries Corporation vs. Endaya, 444 SCRA 329)
.
In the present case, petitioners contend that they are no longer liable
for the salary of Mauring beginning on January 2, 2002 as they already
withdrew their services from PIADECO.
We do not agree.
It is worthy to note that Mauring was an employee of RISA and not by
PIADECO. The fact that he was detailed as guard on the premises of
PIADECO does not make him the employee of the latter. Even assuming
for the sake of argument that the contract for security services with
PIADECO was already cancelled, the same does not bind Mauring, as there
was no evidence presented that will show that he was notified of the alleged
withdrawal.
Hence, Mauring cannot be faulted if he continued reporting in his post
even after January 2, 2002. It was the duty of his employer to inform him
of the cancellation of its security services from PIADECO.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 5
D E C I S I O N
This notwithstanding, We cannot exonerate PIADECO from liability
with regard to the unpaid wages of Mauring.
Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code, expressly provide:
“ART.106. Contractor or Subcontractor. - Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with another person for the
performance of the former’s work, the employees of the
contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor, if any, shall be paid
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to
pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code,
the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his
contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of
the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and
extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
x x x
x x x
x x x.”
“ART.107. Indirect Employer. - The provisions of the
immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any
person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being
an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the
performance of any work, task, job or project.”
“ART.109. Solidary Liability. - The provisions of
existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, every employer
or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his
contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision
of this Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their
civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as
direct employers.”
Based on the afore-quoted provisions, there is no actual employer-
employee relationship between the employee of the contractor and the
principal. Nonetheless, when a contractor fails to pay the wages of his
employees in accordance with the Labor Code, the principal who contracted
out the job becomes jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 6
D E C I S I O N
extent of the work performed under the contract. The contractor is made
liable by virtue of his status as direct employer, while the principal becomes
the indirect employer of the former's employees for the purpose of paying
their wages in the event of failure of the contractor to pay them.
As regards to the contention of petitioners that Mauring is only
entitled to the amount of P4,200.00, since P50.00 was being deducted from
his salary everyday, as payment for his meal, is also untenable.
Under Article 113 of the Labor Code, no employer, in his own behalf
or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his
employees, except: (a) in cases where the workers is insured with his
consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer
for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance; (b) for union dues,
in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual
worker concerned; and (c) in cases where the employer is authorized by law
or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the employer must pay the wages
in full. It cannot by any unauthorized deduction, diminish the employee’s
earnings.
Furthermore, petitioners presented as evidence the company logbook
of PIADECO, which was prepared by a certain Danilo T. Bautista, to prove
that Mauring only rendered 25 days of services for the month of December
and only two days for the month of January. This however, should not be
given credence, since, petitioners failed to show that it came from the
official records of PIADECO or prepared by any of its authorized officers.
Finally, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The
burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee
to prove non-payment. The reason for the rule is that, pertinent personnel
files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents which will
show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 7
D E C I S I O N
workers have been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in the
custody and absolute control of the employer
(Agabon vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 573)
. Petitioners failed to overcome this
burden of proof. No evidence was presented showing that Mauring was paid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The
assailed Decision rendered by Labor Arbiter Lutricia F. Quitevis-Alconcel
dated May 12, 2003 and the Resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated April 17, 2006 and June 14, 2006 are hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that PIADECO is hereby jointly and
severally held liable with RISA for the payment of the wages of Rafael
Mauring.
SO ORDERED.
JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
VICENTE S. E. VELOSO
MARLENE GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. SP NO. 95464 8
D E C I S I O N
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.
Chairman

No comments: