Case Digest: Pigcaulan v. SCII & Reyes

G.R. No. 173648 : January 16, 2012




Canoy and Pigcaulan were both employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to SCIIs different clients. Subsequently, however, Canoy and Pigcaulan filed with the Labor Arbiter separate complaintsfor underpayment of salaries and non-payment of overtime, holiday, rest day, service incentive leave and 13th month pays.

Respondents, however, maintained that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid their just salaries and other benefits under the law; that the salaries they received were above the statutory minimum wage and the rates provided by the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) for security guards; that their holiday pay were already included in the computation of their monthly salaries; that they were paid additional premium of 30% in addition to their basic salary whenever they were required to work on Sundays and 200% of their salary for work done on holidays; and, that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid the corresponding 13th month pay for the years 1998 and 1999. In addition, respondents contended that Canoys and Pigcaulans monetary claims should only be limited to the past three years of employment pursuant to the rule on prescription of claims.

Giving credence to the itemized computations and representative daily time records submitted by Canoy and Pigcaulan, Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion awarded them their monetary claims.

Respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the appeal and held that the evidence show underpayment of salaries as well as non-payment of service incentive leave benefit.

The CA set aside the rulings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC after noting that there were no factual and legal bases mentioned in the questioned rulings to support the conclusions made. Consequently, it dismissed all the monetary claims of Canoy and Pigcaulan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Pigcaulan and Canoy are entitled to their money claims?

HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed and set aside.


Article 94 of the Labor Code provides that:
ART. 94.RIGHT TO HOLIDAY PAY. (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; 
x x x x 
While Article 95 of the Labor Code provides: 
ART. 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 of five days with pay. 
x x x x
Under the Labor Code, Pigcaulan is entitled to his regular rate on holidays even if he does not work. Likewise, express provision of the law entitles him to service incentive leave benefit for he rendered service for more than a year already. Furthermore, under Presidential Decree No. 851,he should be paid his 13th month pay. As employer, SCII has the burden of proving that it has paid these benefits to its employees.

Since SCII failed to provide convincing proof that it has already settled the claims, Pigcaulan should be paid his holiday pay, service incentive leave benefits and proportionate 13thmonth pay for the year 2000.

Consistent with the rule that all money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued,Pigcaulan can only demand the amounts due him for the period within three years preceding the filing of the complaint in 2000. Furthermore, since the records are insufficient to use as bases to properly compute Pigcaulans claims, the case should be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due to him.cralaw