SEABORNE CARRIERS CORPORATION AND JERRY RONALDO GATAN, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ARMANDO A. TERNIDA, RESPONDENTS.

The private respondent began working for Seaborne Carriers
Corporation (Seaborne) on April 8, 1983 as Tug Master with a monthly salary of
P2,475.00. On September 15, 1987, the
tugboat he was manning met an accident. Half of the cost of repairs totalling P5,000.00 was shouldered by
Seaborne. Private respondent was
required to pay for the other half, and an initial salary deduction of P250.00
was actually made by Seaborne. On September
24, 1987, he sought permission to go on leave of absence to ask from the
Department of Labor and Employment if such deduction was legal, but this
request was not granted. Instead, he
was asked by petitioner Gatan, Seaborne’s president and manager, to tender his
resignation. When he refused to resign,
as he had not yet received any separation pay, he was dismissed.

A complaint was then filed by the private respondent against
Seaborne for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, and unpaid wages, which was
later amended to include petitioner Gatan as party-respondent and to embrace
claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, sick leave pay, damages,
and attorney’s fees.

Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno rendered judgment on August 5,
1988, the dispositive portion of which reads thus:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
dismissal of the complainant as illegal. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former
position without loss of seniority rights but without backwages. Backwages will lie upon refusal of
respondent to reinstate complainant. However, respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant the amount of
Two Hundred Fifty (P250.00) Pesos representing the amount illegally deducted
from complainant.

SO ORDERED.”

The private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission which, in a decision promulgated on March 21, 1989, modified the
labor arbiter’s ruling, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED,
ordering the respondents to reinstate complainant to his former position,
without loss of seniority right and other privileges, with full backwages from
the date his salary is (sic) withheld from him until his actual reinstatement,
and to pay complainant his holiday pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave
benefits for 1987 and 1988, plus the amount illegally deducted from his salary,
and attorney’s fees of 10% of the total amount herein awarded.

SO ORDERED.”

Petitioners’ first and second motions for reconsideration were
both denied by the public respondent for lack of merit.

In this petition, the petitioners are asking the Court to set
aside and nullify the NLRC’s decision dated March 21, 1989, and the resolutions
denying their motions for reconsideration, on the following grounds: (a) the NLRC erred in concluding that the
private respondent is entitled to service incentive leave benefits as well as
holiday and 13th month pay; and (b) the NLRC erred in holding petitioner Jerry
Ronaldo Gatan personally liable, with the petitioner corporation, for the
payment of backwages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave
benefits, and attorney’s fees.

Having limited the issues to these two questions, the other
portions of the challenged decision are deemed admitted by the
petitioners. Hence, we will no longer
dwell on the issue of dismissal, reinstatement, award of backwages and
attorney’s fees, and reimbursement of the amount illegally deducted from the
private respondent’s salary.

The petitioners aver that the award to private respondent should
not have included service incentive pay because it was never sought in the
complaint and the private respondent is already enjoying vacation leave
benefits, which bars the employee from entitlement to the yearly service
incentive leave benefit mandated by Article 95 of the Labor Code.

With regard to the award
of 13th month and holiday pay, the petitioners allege that the private
respondent failed to prove or establish that he is entitled to the same, and
that he did not specify which holiday or what year he was not paid said
benefits.

These arguments are
untenable.

The private respondent’s
allegation of non-payment of these benefits, to which he is by law entitled, is
a negative allegation which need not be supported by evidence unless it is an
essential part of the cause of action.^[1] It must be noted that the main cause of
action of the private respondent is his illegal dismissal, and the claim for
the monetary benefits is but an incident of the protest against such
dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving
that payment of said benefits has been made rests upon the party who will
suffer if no evidence at all is presented by either party, that is, the
petitioners as private respondent’s employer.

This brings us to the
second issue raised by the petitioners: Should Jerry Ronaldo Gatan, as president and general manager of Seaborne
be held responsible to the private respondent for the payment of backwages and
other monetary benefits awarded by the NLRC?

The petitioners rely on
the case of Garcia v. NLRC, et al.,^[2] where
the personal liability of corporate officers to dismissed employees was made to
depend on whether such officers acted with evident malice and bad faith. They argue that the assailed decision did
not make any finding that Jerry Gatan acted maliciously or in bad faith in
terminating the services of private respondent.

This contention is meritorious.

All that the evidence shows is that petitioner Gatan ordered the
private respondent to resign and dismissed him when he failed to do so without
considering the reason for such refusal, which is the non-payment of his
separation pay. There is nothing on
record which would prove the insinuation that Jerry Gatan sanctioned the
deduction of P250.00 from private respondent’s salary, as well as the denial of
the latter’s request for leave of absence.

These factors are simply not sufficient to convince this Court
that petitioner Gatan acted with malice and in bad faith in the termination of
private respondent’s employment. In
this regard only, the assailed decision dated March 21, 1989 should be
accordingly modified.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED and the liability of petitioner Seaborne
Carriers Corporation to private respondent is hereby affirmed. Petitioner Jerry Ronaldo Gatan is, however,
exempted from said liability for lack of material proof on his
culpability. Let the records of this
case be remanded to the public respondent for immediate execution of judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, (Chairman), and
Bidin, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Industrial Finance Corporation v. Tobias, No. L-41555, July 27, 1977, 78
SCRA 28.

^[2]
153 SCRA 639.