GOLDEN STAR MANNING AND SHIP MANAGEMENT CORP. AND ANTONIO SULAY III, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION SEVENTH DIVISION AND CIPRIANO P. CONSAD, JR., RESPONDENTS.
INGLES, G. T., J.:
Assailed in this petition filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, are the Decision[1] rendered on 31 January 2013 by the National Labor Relations Commission and its Resolution[2] issued on 30 April 2013 denying partial reconsideration insofar as the wage differentials is concerned and, reducing the award of 13th month pay in NLRC Case No. VAC-10-000635-12.
The petitioners prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) to restrain the execution of the assailed Decision and Resolution as it would stand to suffer great and irreparable injury if such execution pushes through.
THE ANTECEDENTS
As culled by the National Labor Relations Commission, the facts are as follow, to wit:
“Complainant alleged that he was employed by respondent on July 9, 2008 as welder until his termination on May 16, 2012. He had been continuously working with respondent for almost four years receiving a monthly salary of P6,000.00 or P285.00 per day as reflected in his pay slips, which is below the prescribed minimum wage of P305.00 per day. Respondent Golden Star Manning Ship Management Corp. is a company engaged in the operation of tugboats used in towing bigger ships to the port. Complainant’s work schedule is from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Saturdays. Despite rendering overtime work, he never received a single centavo as overtime pay. In his four years of service with respondent, complainant was not able to avail of service incentive leave pay nor was he given its money equivalent. Furthermore, he was not also given his 13th month pay. Complainant, further, alleged that based on his pay slips, the company automatically deducts P1.147.50 (food allowance) and P40.00 (medical allowance) every pay day or P2,295.00 food allowance and P80.00 medicine allowance every month. However, such deductions were not agreed to by the complainant in writing, which make them illegal.
Complaintant also averred that during the SENA mediation conferences at the DOLE, respondent interposed the defense that he was merely suspended for fifteen days, from May 16 to June 1, 2012. However, it was only during the SENA conference that he saw a copy of the suspension letter. He received copy thereof by registered mail only three weeks after the effectivity date of his suspension. As a matter of fact, he even reported for work on May 16-22, 2012 until he was already barred by the guard from entering the company premises per order of Henry Regner. On June 11, 2012, the company sent him by registered mail a Return to Work Order directing him to report immediately otherwise his continued absence would be considered abandonment of work.
Respondents, for their part, alleged that complainant started working with the company on July 9, 2008 on probationary status. He was accepted for the position despite complainant’s failure to present proof of training that would qualify him for the said position. He subsequently attained a regular status of employment.
Under the Salary and Benefits Agreement for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 entered into by, herein complainant and respondents, complainant agreed to the payment of his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay on a pro-rata (monthly) basis spread over the twelve months of the year.
Around December 2011, on different occasions, complainant became difficult to handle as an employee. Complainant left the work place several times, during working hours, without permission from his immediate supervisor. For several times he also showed disrespect to his supervisor, Henry Regner (x x x) by ignoring Regner every time he was told to do his tasks. Consequently on January 10, 2012, a memorandum was issued calling his attention regarding his reprehensible attitude, and was given a ‘Last Warning’ not to commit the same infractions again. Complainant refused to receive the letter-memorandum saying that he would only receive the letter after he has consulted his lawyer and the matter contained therein, sufficiently explained to him by his lawyer.
In the interim, for the years 2009 to 2010, complainant’s monthly basic salary was increased by respondent on a yearly basis as shown by his monthly pay slips. Pursuant to respondent’s policy, employees are asked to receive and sign their respective copy of the ‘Employees Salaries and Benefits Contract’ for salary increases to indicate the employees’ assent to their salary increase. However, among all the employees, it was only complainant who refused to sign this document despite having received his yearly salary increase. Complainant justified his refusal to sign by saying that he could not read properly and that he needed to consult his lawyer before signing the document. Thus, on April 25, 2012, respondents, in a written memorandum, directed complaintant to submit a written explanation within forty-eight hours from receipt thereof why he should not be penalized for insubordination. Despite complainant’s refusal to receive the said memorandum, respondent still explained the tenor of the said memorandum to the complainant and even translated it in the Cebuano dialect. When complainant still refused to sign it, insisting that he needed to refer it to his lawyer, respondent sent the said letter to complainant’s given address through registered mail. However, complainant refused to comply with respondent’s lawful directive and failed to submit his written explanation. On May 14, 2012, after patiently waiting for complainant to sign and confirm his assent to the increases in his salary, respondent issued a written notice of fifteen-day suspension from May 16, 2012 to June 1, 2012 against complainant for continuous insubordination. Again, complainant refused to receive the notice of his suspension and told respondent that he would not comply, therewith, without having consulted his lawyer. Thus, complainant insisted on reporting for work on May 16, 2012 on the premise that he had not yet received the notice of suspension. On May 17, 2012, complainant was no longer allowed to enter respondent’s work premises in view of his suspension. On June 4, 2012, the day after complainant’s fifteen-day suspension lapsed, complainant did not report for work. That day, respondent sent complainant a Return to Work order but the same could not be served upon him at his residence such that respondent sent it to him by registered mail. Due to his continued absence, respondent sent him another Return to Work Order (RTWO) on June 11, 2012. Since complainant, again, refused to receive the said order, it was, again, sent to him by registered mail. Despite the two RTWOs sent to complainant, he still refused to work such that on June 13, 2012 a last and final RTWO was sent to him, which was again refused receipt by his wife since complainant was not around. Again, the same was sent to complainant by registered mail. On July 9, 2012. complainant filed the instant complaint.”[3]
THE RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER
The Labor Arbiter ruled out illegal dismissal, but directed the herein petitioners to pay the private respondent 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay in the amount of Nine Thousand Four Fifty-Five Pesos (P9,455.00).[4]
THE RULING OF THE NLRC
On appeal, the respondent NLRC affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter’s decision, viz –
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 28 August 2012 is, hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Respondents are ordered to pay complainant wage differentials, 13th month pay and Service Incentive Leave Pay (SILP) in the aggregate amount of ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TEN 49/100 (P101,910.49).
SO ORDERED.”[5]
On reconsideration,[6] the respondent NLRC disposed the petitioners’ motion in this wise, viz –
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED insofar as the grant of salary differentials to the complainant is concerned. However, the amount of 13th month pay awarded to the complainant is reduced from P22,149.91 to Php. 12,044.91. Thus, respondent is, hereby, ordered to pay complainant the amount of NINETY-ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE and 49/100 (P91,805.49) broken down as follows:
Salary Differentials 13th month pay SILP SO ORDERED.”[7]
Hence, this petition on the following grounds, to wit:
“I.
The Honorable Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it totally disregarded evidence material to the controversy.
II.
The Honorable Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it awarded wage differentials to private respondent arbitrarily causing grave and irreparable injury and against the interest of substantial justice.”
THE ARGUMENTS
The petitioners’
That, the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the certified true copies of the payroll statements for the period January 2009 to May 2012 attached to its motion for partial reconsideration. Under Article 221 of the the Labor Code, as amended, technical rules of the Rules of Court are not binding in labor cases. The case relied upon by the respondent NLRC, Cansino v. CA, to support its ruling that credence cannot be given to belatedly-submitted evidence such as the payroll statements is a civil case, hence, not applicable in this instance. It bears to stress that “even if the evidence was not submitted to the labor arbiter, the fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to the NLRC is enough basis for the latter to be more judicious in admitting the same, instead of falling back on the mere technicality that said evidence can no longer be considered on appeal.” (Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176240, October 17, 2008, citing Clarion Printing House, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No, 148372, June 27, 2005.) To add, “the submission of additional evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure. X x x The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice. In keeping with this directive, it has been held that the NLRC may consider evidence such as documents and affidavits submitted by the parties for the first time on appeal. The submission of additional evidence on appeal does not prejudice the other party for the latter could submit counter-evidence.” (Sasan, supra)
Even granting without admitting that the payroll statements attached to its motion for partial reconsideration are mere photocopies still these are acceptable it being that, as already stated, the proceedings before the NLRC are not covered by the technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in the regular courts.
That, the respondent NLRC failed to take into account the Salary and Benefits Agreement for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and the certified true copies of the payroll statements it submitted, and the payslips that the private respondent, himself, submitted. From these documents, it is clear that the private respondent receive a daily wage rate more than that prescribed by law.
Anent the allegation that automatic deductions were made against the private respondent’s regular salary, such allegation is amply refuted by the payroll statments attached to its motion for partial reconsideration. Thus, the burden is now shifted to the private respondent to prove such deductions and underpayment.
“x x x Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. x x x Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of any injustice not commensurate with the degree of non-compliance with the process required.” (Anib v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 190216, August 16, 2010)
Moreover, as enunciated in Medline Management, Inc., et. al. v. Roslinda (G.R. No. 168715, September 15, 2010):
While the Court adheres to the principle of liberality in favor of the seafarer in construing the Standard Employment Contract, we cannot allow claims for compensation based on surmises. When the evidence presented negates compensability, this Court has no choice but to deny the claim, lest we cause injustice to the employer.
The private respondent’s
Contrary to the petitioners’s allegation, the respondent NLRC did not disregard the evidence extant in the records. In fact, the respondent NLRC ruled that based on the evidence on record there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. To add, the respondent NLRC even reduced the monetary award on reconsideration.
Anent the payroll statements, the petitioners should have submitted the same at the earliest opportune time. If the respondent NLRC did not anymore consider the payroll statements as evidence to prove payment of the amounts reflected therein there is no one to blame but the petitioners itself. Thus, the respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it awarded wage differentials and other benefits in his favor.
That, the monthly medicine and victualling allowances in the amount of P80.00 and P2,295.00, respectively, were correctly excluded by the respondent NLRC from the computation of his salary as he did not actually receive such allowances. This practice of augmenting the salary by adding in the payslips the medicine and victualling allowances although not received by the employees caused injustice to the employees as the money could have been used for some other purposes.
Even if he did not receive the medicine and victualling allowances, yet it would appear in the payroll statements and payslips that he received them. Clearly, it is petitioners that is unjustly enriching itself by circumventing the law at his expense.
Finally, the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction must be denied as is it is him who would suffer great and irreparable injury if the same is issued.
THE ISSUES
At the core of the controversy is the issue of whether or not the payroll sheets submitted by the petitioners may still be considered as evidence of payment; and if they be so, then does the monetary award granted to the private respondent have legal and factual bases?
THIS COURT’S RULING
The petition is meritorious.
Firstly, it is settled rule that the Labor Arbiter and the respondent NLRC are not bound by the technical rules and procedure observed in the regular courts. In point is the case of Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, [8] viz –
We agree with petitioners. Article 221 of the Labor Code provides that in any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling. It is the spirit and intention of the Code that the Commission and its members as well as the Labor Arbiters use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
By logic, the doctrine enunciated in Mayon Hotel v. Adana[9] finds application, wherein the Supreme Court found and held that,
But more significantly, we sustain the Labor Arbiter and the CA because even when the case was on appeal with the NLRC, nothing was submitted to negate the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Pacita Po is not the real owner of the subject hotel and restaurant. Indeed, no such evidence was submitted in the proceedings with the CA nor with this Court. Considering that petitioners vehemently deny ownership by petitioner Josefa Po Lam, it is most telling that they continue to withhold evidence which would shed more light on this issue. We therefore agree with the CA that the failure to submit could only mean that if produced, it would have been adverse to petitioners’ case.
But this is not what happened in the case at bar. Here, the petitioners, after the respondent NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by granting payment of salary differentials, among others, submitted payroll sheets[10] to show that, indeed, the food and medicine allowances form part of the private respondent’s salary and that the private respondent received such allowances in form of cash every payday. Thus, for producing the payroll sheets albeit on reconsideration the petitioners has demonstrated that it has nothing to hide.
Secondly, notwithstanding the submission by the petitioners of the payroll sheets, the respondent NLRC held that –
“Moreover, even if We admit in evidence the payrolls belatedly submitted by the respondent, still, the same would not be enough to overturn Our previous finding. We note that the said payrolls are mere photocopies, which cannot be considered adequate for Us to conclude that, indeed, the entries therein are true and correct or that the signatures appearing therein are genuine.”[11]
That the payroll sheets submitted by the petitioners are not certified true copies of the originals is of no moment and does not weaken the petitioners’ case. What is more important is that the private respondent did not question the authenticity of his signature appearing in the payroll sheets.
Thirdly, res ipsa loquitor. The payroll sheets speak for itself. Thus, it was grave error for the respondent NLRC to hastily conclude, based only on the “assiduous assertion” by the private respondent that he did not receive the amounts reflected on the payslips and payroll sheets, that:
“Further, even granting that such payrolls, indeed, exist, this alone is not an assurance that the amount appearing therein (victualling and medicine allowance) to have formed part of complainant’s gross salary were, indeed, received by the complainant. We note complainant’s assiduous assertion even from the start that the P40.00 medicine allowance and P1,147.50 food (victualling) allowance, though reflected as part of his gross income in his pay slips, were not actually received by him, which is precisely the reason why he claimed that the said allowances were automatically deducted from his salary without his consent. While respondent argued that per pay slips submitted by the complainant and the payroll it submitted, the food and medicine allowances were not deductions but, instead, were actually additions to complainant’s basic pay, the same does not persuade Us. Admittedly, that is how they appear in the payslips and in the payrolls but, in truth and in fact, these amounts were not received by the complainant and such failure of the respondent to give such amounts to the complainant or to include them in his monthly net pay was perceived by the complainant as automatic deductions of the said amounts from his salary. For this reason, we see no compelling justification for Us to reverse Our previous finding on the matter of complainant’s salary differentials.”[12]
Verily, this conclusion has no basis, both factual and legal. An examination of the payroll sheets dating back to January 2009 until May 2012 reveals the private respondent’s signature opposite the amount of his net pay for a particular period. Besides, “ideally, the signatures of the respondents should appear in the payroll as evidence of actual payment.”[13] Indeed, “x x x, the RTC correctly preferred the payroll documents (which contain the signatures of employees), implying that these are the primary/best evidence of payment, or ‘that which [afford] the greatest certainty of the fact in question.'”[14] More than anything else, the private respondent’s self-serving and unsubstantiated allegation that he did not receive the cash equivalent of the medicine and food allowances cannot overturn the evidentiary weight of his signature in the payroll sheets and, the payslips he submitted. Moreover, we cannot just believe the private respondent’s word as against the petitioners’ especially in this instance where the submitted payroll sheets enjoy a presumption of correctness.
Now, to the issue of whether or not private respondent is entitled to the subject money claims.
At this juncture, it may be well to quote the respondent NLRC’s finding, viz –
“A perusal of the payrolls show that, indeed, complainant’s gross salary was comprised of the following: basic salary plus P40.00 medicine allowance and P1,147.50 for ‘victualling’ for a total of P1,187.50 every fifteen days or P3,375.00 per month. Thus, when added to the basic pay of P2,500.00 (for a 15-day period in the year 2009, for example), complainant would have received P3,687.50 every fifteen days or P7,375.00 per month, which, indeed, is over and above the prescribed minimum wage rate during that time. The payrolls submitted by the respondent purportedly bear the signature of complainant, which respondent presented and referred to as evidence of actual receipt by the complainant of the amount stated therein.”[15]
This goes only to show that the net pay received by the private respondent is already over and above the statutory wage rate, hence, there is no reason to grant payment of wage differentials to the private respondent. Well entrenched is the rule that no one shall unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of another. Niguno non deue enriquecerse tortizamente condano de otro.
A final note
Without a doubt, the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it disregarded the payroll sheets submitted by the petitioners and blindly succumbed to the private respondent’s self-serving averments without regard of Article 221 of the Labor Code, as amended, and prevailing jurisprudence. Viz –
Clearly, respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by strictly applying procedural technicalities in the case before it, in complete disregard of established policy of the Labor Code and jurisprudence. In affirming the doctrine that the Commission and the Labor Arbiters may avail themselves of all reasonable means to speedily ascertain the facts of a controversy, we uphold the power of respondent NLRC to consider even on appeal such other and additional documentary evidence from the parties if only to support their contentions. This is in accord with the well settled doctrine that rules of procedure and evidence should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases and that technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. petitioners must therefore be afforded the opportunity to present the originals of respondent Lamsen’s payrolls for a proper determination of the factual issue of whether he was underpaid in terms of wages and overtime pay.
Apropos, the Supreme Court in Garcia v. PAL[16] explained that,
It would be more in accord with substantial justice and equity to overlook the procedural lapse, and allow the petition to be resolved on its merits. It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases. Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. As the Court stressed in a recent case:
The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court may reverse the dismissal of appeals that are grounded merely on technicalities. Moreover, procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases in which the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in suppletory manner. Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required.
It may well to note that the petitioners sought only to modify the assailed Resolution insofar as the award of wage differentials is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, the Decision dated 31 January 2013 and Resolution dated 30 April 2013 rendered in NLRC VAC-10-000635-12 are MODIFIED deleting the award of salary differentials.
SO ORDERED.
Maxino, P.A.A., and Francisco, R.C., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-42.
[2] Rollo, pp. 24-30.
[3] Rollo, pp. 32-35.
[4] At page 1 of the assailed decision, Rollo, p. 32.
[5] Rollo, p. 42.
[6] Rollo, pp. 43-51.
[7] Rollo, p. 29.
[8] Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., et. al. v. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 124500, December 4, 2008.
[9] Mayon Hotel & Restaurant, et. al. v. Rolando Adana, et. al., G.R. No. 157634, May 16, 2005.
[10] Rollo, pp. 64-144.
[11] At page 4 of the assailed resolution, Rollo, p. 28.
[12] At pages 4-5 of the assailed resolution, Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[13] Kar Asia, Inc. and/or Celestino S. Baretto v. Mario Corona, et. al., G.R. No. 154985, August 24, 2004.
[14] Adrian Wilson International Associates, Inc. v. TMX Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162608. July 26, 2010. Citing Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 326, (1996).
[15] Assailed Resolution, Rollo, p. 27.
[16] Juanito A. Garcia and Alberto J. Dumago v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 160798, June 8, 2005. Citing Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 146336, December 13, 2001, 372 SCRA 271; EDI Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Magsino, G.R. No. 139430, June 20, 2001, 359 SCRA 212; and Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146125, September 17, 2003, 411 SCRA 211.