G.R. No. 240143 – STEPHANIE A. MAITIM, MARGIE M. AMBAN, and FLORA Q. MAHINAY, petitioners, vs. TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC./CESAR E. PABELLANO and ARABIAN GULF COMPANY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CONTRACTING, respondents.
GAERLAN, J.
Rule Synopsis
In cases involving the alleged underpayment of wages and other legally or contractually mandated benefits, the burden of proof rests with the employer, as all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents are in the employer’s custody and control.
Furthermore, the general rule is that the burden shifts to the employee to prove that they are entitled to overtime pay for working beyond regular working hours. However, this may admit of exception as when, under the circumstances, the burden of proof is impossible for an employee to discharge. Further, in this jurisdiction, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in the worker’s favor.
Facts
In 2013, Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. (TSTSI), on behalf of its principal, Arabian Gulf Company for Maintenance and Contracting (AGCMC), hired Stephanie Maitim and two others as nursing aide in Saudi Arabia.
Maitim, et al. alleged that under their employment contracts, they were hired for two years with 8-hour work days. Further, that they will receive a monthly salary of $400, food allowance, and 21 days of annual paid vacation leave. However, they were made to sign a second employment contract designating them as housekeepers for three years, with 12-hour work days, and at much lower monthly salary of SAR 850.
Maitim, et al. further claimed that even after the expiration of their contracts, they were not allowed to return to the Philippines. They were able to do so only after seeking help from the local police. They were repatriated in October 2016 and filed the instant complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of overtime pay, vacation leave pay, food allowance and other monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Maitim, et al. were entitled to salary differentials and vacation leave pay for 24 months, but not for food allowance and overtime pay. Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
During the proceedings at the NLRC, the respondents submitted, for the first time, the payroll summary and daily time records (DTRs) of Maitim, et al. to prove that they were paid a monthly salary of SAR 1,500 and food allowance of SAR 300. Maitim et al. countered that the said documents were forgeries and fabrications.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) granted Maitim, et al.’s partial appeal and ruled that the salary differentials and vacation leave pay shall be computed based on their actual period of employment, which was for more than three years. The NLRC also ruled that they were entitled to food allowance and overtime pay. TSTSI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On February 2, 2018, the CA ordered Maitim, et al. to file their comment on TSTSI’s appeal. On February 22, 2018, upon TSTSI’s urgent motion, the CA issued its assailed Decision reversing the NLRC ruling and ordering the dismissal of Maitim, et al.’s complaint. It noted that Maitim failed to file any comment on TSTSI’s appeal. The CA also admitted the payroll records submitted by TSTSI given its finding that Maitim, et al. admitted that the signatures appearing therein belonged to them.
The CA also denied Maitim, et al.’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition.
Issues
Did the CA err when it rendered the assailed issuances reversing and setting aside the factual findings of the LA as affirmed with modification by the NLRC, and ordering the dismissal of Maitim, et al.’s complaint?
Ruling and Discussion
Yes. The CA erred in rendering the assailed issuances.
The Supreme Court initially noted that the CA rushed, without any plausible reason, the issuance of the assailed Decision given that the same was rendered without awaiting Maitim, et al.’s comment, and without even verifying when they received the resolution ordering its submission.
Further, the Supreme Court found it proper, in this case, to exercise its equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues, to scrutinize the records of the case, and thoroughly re-examine the questioned findings, in view of the conflict between the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, on one hand, and those of the CA.
TSTSI, et al. failed to discharge their burden to prove the payment and benefits to Maitim et al.
In cases involving the alleged underpayment of wages and other legally or contractually mandated benefits, the burden of proof rests with the employer, as all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents are in the employer’s custody and control.
Here, the Supreme Court rejected CA’s findings that Maitim, et al. admitted that their respective signatures in the payroll records adduced by TSTSI, et al. belonged to them, as nothing in the records supports this finding. On the contrary, Maitim, et al. consistently maintained that the said signatures were forgeries and, thus, the subject payroll records are inadmissible to prove the payment of their wages and benefits.
Meanwhile, the evidence adduced by TSTSI, et al. to prove that Maitim, et al. were paid the correct wages and benefits are not credible and show signs of forgery such as the signature portions being identical as to signature, their placement, markings, even erasures; and that some payroll records were eerily identical with each other.
Absent other evidence that Maitim, et al. were paid their correct wages and benefits, TSTSI, et al. failed to disprove its nonpayment. Maitim, et al. are thus entitled to their claim for salary differentials, vacation leave pay, and food allowance.
Under the circumstances, the burden of proving that Maitim, et al. rendered overtime is impossible to discharge
The general rule is that the burden shifts to the employee to prove that they are entitled to overtime pay for working beyond regular working hours. However, this may admit of exception as when, under the circumstances, the burden of proof is impossible for an employee to discharge. Further, in this jurisdiction, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence should be resolved in the worker’s favor.
The exception applies in this case. AGCMC did not allow Maitim, et al. to leave upon the expiration of their contracts, they were forced to work under unfair conditions for more than a year. It was only after they sought assistance from the local police that they were allowed to return to the Philippines. In light of these circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect that they have with them any document that would prove the actual labor that they rendered for AGCMC.
Conversely, the DTRs submitted by TSTSI, et al. are highly suspicious. The Court observes that the DTRs were all completely handwritten by one and the same unidentified person and were not signed or acknowledged by the employees concerned. In addition, the said DTRs were incomplete.
Maitim, et al. are also entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Finally, the corporate officers of TSTSI were jointly and severally liable with the latter in accordance with the second paragraph of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
dispositive
Petition granted. CA’s Decision and Resolution reversed and set aside. NLRC’s Decision and Resolution reinstated with modification. TSTSI, AGCMC, and their corporate officers are jointly and severally liable.