ELEAZAR C. MAPILI, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MUSTANG SECURITY AGENCY, INC., ANTONIO ELEAZAR AND FRANCIS ELEAZAR, RESPONDENTS.
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
This is the Petition for Certiorari[1]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Eleazar C. Mapili
(“petitioner Mapili”), imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the National Labor Relations Commission, Sixth Division (“public
respondent NLRC”) for issuing: 1) the Decision dated 13 February 2012[2] (“assailed Decision”) which reversed the Decision issued by Labor Arbiter Corazon B. Borbolla dated 29 April 2011;[3] and the Resolution dated 30 April 2012[4] (“assailed Resolution”) which denied petitioner Mapili’s Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The undisputed facts are as follows: on 22 June 2000, the
Mustang Security Agency, Inc., (“private respondent MSAI”) hired
petitioner Mapili as a security guard, and initially assigned him to
Region IV; on 16 January 2008, private respondent MSAI, Antonio Eleazar
(“private respondent Antonio”), and Francis Eleazar (“private respondent
Francis”) transferred petitioner Mapili to the National Capital Region
(“NCR”); on 25 December 2009, petitioner Mapili resigned.
On 1 July 2010, petitioner Mapili filed the Complaint[6] against private respondents with the NLRC. The Complaint prayed for: payment of unpaid salaries, overtime pay, 13th
month pay, night shift differential, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest
day premium and emergency cost of living allowance (“money claims”).
Petitioner Mapili alleged in his Position Paper/Affidavit of the Complainant,[7]
filed before the Labor Arbiter: private respondents underpaid
petitioner Mapili of his wages, as evidenced by his payslips which show
that private respondents paid him lower than the prescribed minimum wage
(i.e., Php 5,250.00 per month in 2002 and 2003; Php 6,500.00
per month in 2004; Php 4,375.00 per month in 2005; Php 5,000.00 per
month in 2006; Php 7,000.00 per month in 2007; Php 6,000.00 per month in
2008 and 2009); private respondents did not pay petitioner Mapili
holiday pay, premiums for holidays, and rest days, overtime pay, night
shift differential and emergency cost of living allowance (“ECOLA”);
petitioner Mapili sought clarification from the management, however
private respondents instead punished petitioner Mapili by assigning him
to different places without change in his salary and benefits.
Private respondents alleged in their Position Paper[8]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondents paid petitioner Mapili in
accordance with the applicable minimum wage, and paid him all the
benefits due; when petitioner Mapili was assigned at Region IV, he was
paid the daily wage of Php 300.00, and when petitioner Mapili was
transferred to NCR on 16 January 2008, his daily wage was adjusted to
Php 362.00, and increased to Php 382.00 in October 2008; petitioner
Mapili’s claims for unpaid overtime pay, holiday, and rest day premiums,
have no basis because petitioner Mapili did not adduce evidence to
prove his entitlement to the said benefits; petitioner Mapili is not
entitled to holiday pay, because it was already incorporated in his
monthly pay; private respondents are not liable for the payment of
ECOLA, because the minimum wage in the NCR does not provide for payment
of ECOLA.
Petitioner Mapili alleged in the Reply[9]
before the Labor Arbiter: private respondents denied petitioner
Mapili’s claims, without evidence; private respondents underpaid
petitioner Mapili of his 13th month pay and overtime pay,
because the computation was based on a wrong daily wage; private
respondents did not furnish petitioner Mapili his daily time record
(“DTR”), because private respondents withheld the DTRs to avoid payment
of holiday and rest day premiums.
Private respondents alleged in the Reply to Complainant’s Position Paper[10]
before the Labor Arbiter: petitioner Mapili’s money claims should be
limited to three years from the filing of the Complaint on 1 July 2010,
or from 1 July 2007, based on the presciptive period under Article 291
of the Labor Code; petitioner Mapili’s Computation of Payroll Summary[11]
(“Payroll Summary”) showed the number of days, overtime hours worked,
in a given payroll period, legal deductions in his wages and the payment
of service incentive leave pay, holiday and rest day premiums; the
Authority to Debit documents show that private respondents’ account was
debited by the total wages of its employees and these wages were then
deposited to the individual account of the employees; petitioner
Mapili’s Payroll Summary and the corresponding Authorities to Debit show
that petitioner Mapili’s net pay were deposited to his account.
On 29 April 2009, the Labor Arbiter issued the Decision[12] which ruled in favor of petitioner Mapili. Its dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, respondents are hereby
ordered to pay jointly and severally complainant ELEAZAR C. MAPILI the
following:
Underpayment of wages Underpayment of 13th mo. Pay TOTAL All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Private respondents filed Appeal Memorandum[13] before the public respondent NLRC.
On 13 February 2012, the public respondent NLRC issued the assailed Decision.[14] The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Labor Arbiter dated April 29, 2011 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
and a new one entered ordering the Respondents to pay the Complainant
his service incentive leave pay only from July 1, 2007 to April 15, 2008
in the amount of P 1,379.31, per attached computation.SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Mapili filed Motion for Reconsideration[15] before the NLRC. On 30 April 2012, the public respondent NLRC denied petitioner Mapili’s Motion for Reconsideration.[16]
Thus, this Petition for Certiorari,[17] petitioner Mapili making the following assignment of errors:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. WHETHER PUBLIC
RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MONEY CLAIMS BASED ON
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ PAYROLL SUMMARY AND RELATED, SELF-SERVING
DOCUMENTS.II. WHETHER PUBLIC
RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN LIMITING THE AWARD OF
SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY FROM 01 JULY 2007 TO 15 APRIL 2008 ONLY,
PURSUANT TO SECTION (sic) 291 OF THE LABOR CODE.
III. WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER’S MONEY CLAIMS PRIOR TO 01 JULY 2007 IS BARRED BY
PRESCRIPTION.
The issues are: (1) whether petitioner Mapili’s money claims prior
to 1 July 2007 have prescribed; (2) whether prescription applies to
unpaid service incentive leave; and (3) whether petitioner Mapili is
entitled to his money claims.
THE PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
Anent the first issue, petitioner Mapili answers in the negative. Petitioner Mapili’s money claims have not prescribed.
The Petition for Certiorari[18]
thrusts: during petitioner Mapili’s employment, he consistently claimed
payment of correct wages and benefits, however private respondents did
not definitely deny petitioner Mapili’s complaints, and instead private
respondents made petitioner Mapili rely on false promises of payment,
and detailed him elsewhere; jurisprudence provides that the three-year
prescriptive period should be reckoned only from the employer’s definite
denial, being the precise time when the employee’s cause of action
accrued.
With respect to the second issue, petitioner Mapili answers in
the negative. Prescription does not apply to payment of unpaid service
incentive leave pay.
The Petition for Certiorari thrusts: the
award of service incentive leave pay should not have been limited to
three years from petitioner Mapili’s resignation in December 2009,
because private respondents failed to prove that petitioner Mapili’s
service incentive leave was either used up or commuted to its monetary
value.
Regarding the final issue, petitioner Mapili answers in
the affirmative. Petitioner Mapili is entitled to his money claims
(i.e., unpaid wages, holiday pay, premiums for holidays and rest days,
overtime pay, night shift differential and ECOLA).
The Petition
for Certiorari thrusts: private respondents merely presented petitioner
Mapili’s Payroll Summary, and Authority to Debit documents, which do not
prove that private respondents paid petitioner Mapili’s specific money
claims; perusal of the Payroll Summary reveals non-compliance with the
minimum wage; the items which constituted petitioner Mapili’s net pay
should have been properly scrutinized because the entries in petitioner
Mapili’s payslip were different from the entries in private respondents’
Payroll Summary; the bank certification merely stated that petitioner
Mapili’s salaries were deposited to his individual account, however it
did not certify that the correct wages were paid.
Petitioner Mapili filed Reply to Respondents’ Comment,[19] and Memorandum for Petitioner,[20] which both reiterated his previous arguments.
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
Anent the first and second issues, private respondents answer in the
affirmative. Petitioner Mapili’s money claims and service incentive
leave pay have prescribed.
The Comment To Petition[21]
parries: jurisprudence provides that the amount which can be demanded
by an aggrieved employee shall be limited to the amount of benefits
withheld within 3 years before the filing of the complaint; petitioner
Mapili filed the complaint on 1 July 2010, hence on that date, money
claims for the period prior to 1 July 2007 had prescribed; petitioner
Mapili’s allegations that he consistently claimed payment of correct
wages, and that private respondents denied him assistance, were mere
speculations; contrary to petitioner Mapili’s allegations that his
re-assignment was meant to punish him, his transfer from Region IV to
NCR was beneficial to him, because petitioner Mapili was assigned to
Mandaluyong City, which is near his residence; prescription is raised
for the first time on appeal, hence it should not be allowed.
Regarding the final issue, private respondents answer in the
negative. Petitioner Mapili is not entitled to his money claims.
The Comment To Petition parries: private respondents’ evidence complied
with the substantial evidence requirement in administrative proceedings
before the NLRC; private respondents’ evidence show that private
respondents paid all of petitioner Mapili’s money claims; petitioner
Mapili never denied receiving the amounts indicated in the Authorities
to Debit which represent his wages every payroll period; private
respondents’ evidence complied with the substantial evidence requirement
in administrative proceedings before the NLRC; while there were
discrepancies in the Payroll Summary and petitioner Mapili’s payslips,
the discrepancies were mere typographical errors, without adverse effect
on petitioner Mapili because he still received the correct wages; only
petitioner Mapili’s payslips for payroll period April 1 to 15, 2008 and
for October 16 to 31, 2008 contained typographical errors, while all the
rest of petitioner Mapili’s payslips were correct.
Private respondents filed Memorandum[22] which reiterated their arguments.
THE COURT’S RULING
Anent the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. Petitioner Mapili’s money claims prior to 1 July 2007 have prescribed.
Applicable is Article 291 of the Labor Code, which reads:
Article 291. Money Claims. – All money claims
arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity
of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the
cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever be barred.xxx xxx xxx
As above-quoted, money claims arising from an employer-employee
relationship should be filed within 3 years from the time the cause of
action accrued, otherwise, the money claims are forever barred by
prescription.
Petitioner Mapili sought to collect money claims arising from
his employment relationship with private respondents covering the period
22 June 2000 (the date his employment began) to 25 December 2009 (the
date of his resignation), through the Complaint[23]
filed on 1 July 2010. On the date petitioner Mapili filed the
Complaint on 1 July 2010, the 3-year prescriptive period reckoned from
the time the employer refuses to pay,[24]
had expired, and money claims from 22 June 2000 to 30 June 2007 had
prescribed. Thus, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of dicretion when
it ruled as it did.
With respect to the second issue, we rule in the negative. Prescription does not apply to the unpaid service incentive leave.
Applicable is Article 95 of the Labor Code, as amended. It reads:
Article 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 leave of five days with pay.xxx xxx xxx
Thus, under Article 95 above quoted, an employee who has worked
for at least one year, is entitled to an incentive leave of 5 days with
pay. Further, under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, the
service incentive leave shall be commutable to its money equivalent if
not used or exhausted at the end of the year.[25]
In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista,[26]
the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between money claims and
service incentive leave pay for purposes of prescription. As stated
therein, in cases of nonpayment of allowances and other monetary
benefits, the amount that can only be demanded by the aggrieved employee
shall be limited to the amount of benefits withheld within 3 years
before the filing of the complaint. In contrast, the Supreme Court noted
that in light of the peculiarity of the service incentive leave, “the
3-year prescriptive period commences, not at the end of the year when
the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service
incentive leave, but from the time when the employer refuses to pay its
monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of
the employee’s services, as the case may be.”
In this case, petitioner Mapili was entitled to service
incentive leave pay after one year of service with private respondents
or on 22 June 2001 until his resignation on 25 December 2009. Pursuant
to the ruling in Auto Bus, the 3-year prescriptive period did
not apply to petitioner Mapili’s service incentive leave pay. Absent
proof of petitioner Mapili’s availment, or private respondents’ payment
of the service incentive leave’s monetary value since 22 June 2001,
private respondents are liable for payment of petitioner Mapili’s
service incentive leave pay. Clearly, the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion when it held that the 3-year prescriptive period applied to
petitioner Mapili’s service incentive leave pay.
Regarding the final issue, we rule in the affirmative. Petitioner Mapili is entitled to his money claims.
Well-settled is the rule that once the employee has set out
with particularity in his complaint, position paper, affidavits and
other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which
he alleged that the employer failed to pay him, it becomes the
employer’s burden to prove that it has paid these money claims. One who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it, and even where the
employees must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden
rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employees to
prove non-payment.[27] The
reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances, and other similar documents — which will show that
overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of
the worker have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but
in the custody and absolute control of the employer.[28]
A review of the records shows that private respondents
presented petitioner Mapili’s Payroll Summary which indicates: (1)
payroll periods from 1-15 July 2007 until 15-31 December 2009; (2)
private respondents’ client where petitioner Mapili was assigned to
work; (3) region where petitioner Mapili was assigned to work – either
Region 4 or NCR; (4) daily minimum wage; (5) amount of ECOLA; (6) number
of regular hours worked; (7) amount of ECOLA; (8) basic pay; (9)
payment of ECOLA; (10) overtime pay; (11) night differential pay; (12)
SIL pay; (13) uniform allowance; (14) holiday pay; (15) other pay; (16)
gross pay; (17) legal deductions; (18) other deductions; and (19) net
pay.
Private respondents also presented as evidence: (1) Authority
to Debit executed by the authorized representative of private
respondents; (2) Report of all private respondents’ salaried employees,
and their respective account numbers, and net pay; (3) Bank
Certification[29] issued by
the Philippine National Bank which stated that the salaries of
petitioner Mapili for the period July 2007 to December 2009 were
credited to his PNB payroll account.
We hold that the evidence of private respondents showed by a
preponderance of evidence that private respondents paid petitioner
Mapili’s money claims. Notably, petitioner Mapili did not deny that he
received his wages through the ATM. However, petitioner Mapili
questions whether private respondents paid him the claims as required by
law.
Petitioner Mapili argues private respondents did not
implement the wage increases provided under Wage Order No. NCR-14, and
in so doing, private respondents underpaid petitioner Mapili of his
wages. According to petitioner Mapili, Wage Order No. NCR-14 adjusted
the minimum wage from Php 362.00 to Php 377.00 from 14 June 2008 to 27
August 2008, and this was increased to Php 382.00 from 28 August 2008.
However, as shown by the Payroll Summary, private respondents used the
minimum wage of Php 362.00 from June 2008 to September 2008. Thus,
according to petitioner Mapili, for this particular period alone, he
was deprived of at least Php 15.00 per day of his basic pay, and this
resulted to the underpayment of his other benefits which were based on
the erroneous basic pay.
We agree with petitioner Mapili.
Applicable is the Rule II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules Implementing
Wage Order No. NCR-14 (“ Implementing Rules”) issued by the Regional
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, NCR. These provisions read:
RULE II
NEW MINIMUM WAGE RATES
Section1. AMOUNT OF INCREASE. Effective 14 June 2008, all
minimum wage workers in the private sector in the National Capital
Region shall receive an increase of Twenty Pesos (P 20.00) per day
consisting of Fifteen Pesos (P15.00) Basic Wage and Five Pesos (P5.00)
Cost of Living Allowance.Section 2. MINIMUM WAGE RATES EFFECTIVE 14 June 2008. The
new daily minimum wage rates in the National Capital Region shall be as
follows:
INDUSTRY/SECTOR Non-agriculture Php 362.00 Php 15.00 Php 5.00 Php 382.00 xxx
Section 3. MINIMUM WAGE RATES EFFECTIVE 28 AUGUST 2008. The
Five Pesos (P5.00) COLA shall be automatically integrated into the Basic
Wage on 28 August 2008. The minimum wage rates in the National Capital
region shall therefore be as follows:
TOTAL Non-agriculture Php 362.00 Php 20.00 Php 382.00 xxx
As above-quoted, effective 14 June 2008, all minimum wage workers
under the non-agriculture sector in the NCR shall have a basic wage of
Php 277.00 and COLA of Php 5.00. On 28 August 2008, the Php 5.00 was
integrated in the basic wage, making the minimum wage, Php 382.00.
Perusal of the Payroll Summary shows that private respondents failed to
comply with the wage increases under Wage Order No. NCR-14. Petitioner
Mapili’s basic wage from 1-15 June 2008 to 15-30 September 2008 was only
Php 362.00. However, under the Implementing Rules, starting 14 June
2008 to 27 August 2008, petitioner Mapili’s basic wage should have been
Php 377.00, and petitioner Mapili’s COLA should have been P 5.00, and
effective 28 August 2008, the Php 5.00 COLA was integrated in the basic
wage, thus the minimum wage became Php 382.00. However, private
respondents implemented the wage increase beginning the 1-15 October
2008 payroll period only.
It is clear that private
respondents underpaid petitioner Mapili’s wages since 14 June 2008 until
30 September 2008. Petitioner Mapili’s basic wage should have been
increased to Php 377.00 starting 14 June 2008 to 27 August 2008, and
thereafter increased to Php 382.00 starting 28 August 2008. Private
respondents also underpaid petitioner Mapili of the applicable overtime
pay, night differential pay, holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums
for 14 June 2008 until 30 September 2008.
We limit the award of 13th month pay to 3 years, in accordance with Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended.
A review of private respondents’ evidence shows that private respondents paid petitioner Mapili his 13th month pay for the years 2007 (Php 6,679.50),[30] 2008 (Php 8,679.25),[31] and 2009 (Php 9,454.50).[32]
However, due to the non-implementation of the wage increases under Wage
Order No. NCR-14, private respondents underpaid petitioner Mapili his
13th month pay.
On the matter of service incentive leave pay, the public
respondent NLRC ruled that the service incentive leave is also subject
to the 3-year prescriptive period. The NLRC found that private
respondents paid petitioner Mapili his service incentive leave pay,
except for the period covering July 2007 to 30 April 2008.
We modify public respondent NLRC’s award of service incentive leave pay.
As discussed above, the 3-year prescriptive period does not apply to
service incentive leave pay. Thus, if unused or unpaid, petitioner
Mapili is entitled to service incentive leave pay one year from his
employment, or from 22 June 2001 until his resignation on 25 December
2009.
Perusal of the Payroll Summary shows that it is only
limited to payroll periods 1-15 July 2007 until 16-31 December 2009. We
affirm the findings of the NLRC that private respondents did not pay
petitioner Mapili his service incentive leave pay for July 2007 to 30
April 2008, based on the Payroll Summary. However, since the claims for
service incentive leave pay have not prescribed, it was incumbent upon
private respondents to prove that they paid petitioner Mapili’s service
incentive leave pay from 22 June 2001.
Thus, we order
private respondents to pay the service incentive leave pay of petitioner
Mapili from 22 June 2001 until 30 April 2008.
The Court rules as follows:
1) GRANTS the Petition for Certiorari, and ORDERS
private respondent Mustang Security Agency, Inc. to pay petitioner
Eleazar C. Mapili’s unpaid wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday
and rest day premium, 13th month pay and service incentive leave;
2) REMANDS
this case to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of the following
money claims: (a) unpaid wages and COLA for 14 June 2008 to 30 September
2008; (b) unpaid overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday and rest day
premiums for 14 June 2008 to 30 September 2008; (c) unpaid 13th
month pay for 2008 considering the underpayment of wages in the period
14 June 2008 to 30 September 2008; and (d) service incentive leave pay
from 22 June 2001 until 30 April 2008.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] C.A. Rollo, pp. 2-123.
[2] Annex A to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 31-45.
[3] Annex L to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 96-99.
[4] Annex E to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[5] Annex D to the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 50-53.
[6] Annex G of the Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[7] Annex H of the Petition, C.A.Rollo, pp. 62-78.
[8] Annex I to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 79-87.
[9] Annex J to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 88-90.
[10] Annex K to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 91-93.
[11] C.A. Rollo, pp. 158-159.
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] Annex M to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 100-113.
[14] Supra note 2.
[15] Annex D to Petition, C.A. Rollo, pp. 50-53.
[16] Supra note 4.
[17] Supra note 1.
[18] Supra note 1.
[19] C.A. Rollo, pp. 994-999.
[20] C.A. Rollo, pp. 1031-1043.
[21] C.A. Rollo, pp. 130-993.
[22] C.A. Rollo, pp. 1015-1030.
[23] Supra note 6.
[24] Auto Bus Transport System, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, 16 May 2005.
[25] SECTION 5.
Treatment of Benefit. – The service incentive leave shall be commutable
to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year.
[26] Supra note 24.
[27] Ridad et al., v.
Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, G.R. No. 188659, 13 February
2013 citing De Guzman v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
167701, 12 December 2007, 540 SCRA 21, 35 citing Mayon Hotel &
Restaurant v. Adana, 497 Phil. 892, 923-924 (2005) citing further
Sevillana v. I.T. (International) Corp., 408 Phil. 570, 588 (2001).
[28] Ibid. citing E.G.
& I. Construction Corporation v. Sato, G.R. No. 182070, 16 February
2011, 643 SCRA 492, 501 citing Agabon v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 485 Phil. 248, 289 (2004).
[29] C.A. Rollo, p. 23.
[30] Annex 2-C-1 of the Comment, C.A. Rollo, p. 322.
[31] Annex 3-Y-1 of the Comment, C.A. Rollo, p. 759.
[32] C.A. Rollo, p. 990.