G.R. No. 210184, February 05, 2014

SECOND DIVISION [ G.R. No. 210184, February 05, 2014 ] PRO MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY, INC./MARLON GUMABAY, PETITIONERS V. ELMER P. PADOJINOG, RESPONDENT.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing both the Decision[1] and the Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126639 dated 3 September 2013 and 28 November 2013, respectively. The questioned Decision and Resolution reversed the Decision[3] and Resolution[4] dated 16 May 2012 and 29 June 2012, respectively, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and thereby directed the herein petitioners PRO Maximum Security Agency, Inc. (PMSAI)/Marlon Gumabay (Gumabay) to pay the money claims rightfully due to herein respondent Elmer P. Padojinog.

The facts are:

On 6 August 2009, respondent was hired as a security guard by petitioner PMSAI and was assigned to various clients of the latter. His last assignment was with Mariposa Lodge 3 from 4 August 2010 to 20 April 2011.[5]

Respondent accused the petitioners of non-payment of wages, holiday and premium pay, 13th month pay, night shift differential and overtime pay, as well as underpayment of wages. Thus, on 26 April 2011, he formally lodged a suit for money claims against the petitioners before the Labor Arbiter to recover his alleged unpaid benefits, as well as attorney's fees.[6]

For their part, the petitioners averred that respondent was properly paid his wages, overtime pay, holiday and premium pay, 13th month pay and night shift differential as evidenced by the payroll documents of petitioner PMSAI. Thus, petitioners prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of basis in fact and in law.[7]

In a Decision[8] dated 30 January 2012, the Labor Arbiter dismissed respondent's complaint for lack of merit.

On appeal, the NLRC, in its Decision dated 16 May 2012, denied respondent's appeal for lack of merit. Respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied in a Resolution dated 29 June 2012.On further appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter in its Decision dated 3 September 2013, reversed the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC and directed the petitioners to pay the money claims rightfully due to the respondent. The Court of Appeals elucidated:
In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer has the burden of proving that the employees did receive their wages and benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law.

In this case, the [herein petitioner PMSAI] was unable to present ample evidence to prove its claim that the [herein respondent] had received all his salaries and benefits in full.

It is settled 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 the employer allegedly failed to pay him, it becomes the employer's burden to prove that it has paid these money claims.

x x x x

In the case at bench, [petitioner PMSAI] failed to discharge such burden of proof. It has not shown any proof of payment of the correct amount of salary, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, and night shift differential. The payroll sheets it presented are proof only of payment of the benefits received by the [respondent] for the corresponding period stated therein. Verily the payroll sheets do not conclusively prove that the [respondent] has been paid all his salaries and other benefits in full, from [8 August 2009 to 20 April 2011]. In fact, other than the payroll sheets for [1-15 May 2010, 1- 15 November 2010 and 1-15 January 2011], no other evidence of payment for the benefits claimed by the [respondent] was presented by the [petitioner PMSAI]. Considering that it was entirely within the [petitioner PMSAI's] power to present such payrolls which should necessarily be in its possession, its failure to present such evidence must be taken against it.[9] (Emphasis supplied).
Petitioners moved for its reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated 28 November 2013.

Hence, this Petition arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, thus, awarding all the monetary claims in favor of the respondent without any substantial basis.

This Court affirms the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

In Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Gonzalvo, Jr.[10] citing Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana,[11] this Court held that inasmuch as the employee had set out with particularity in the complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents the labor standard benefits he is entitled to, and which he alleged that the employer had failed to pay him, it became incumbent upon the employer to prove that it had paid these money claims. This is in tune with the general precept that: "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 defendant to prove non-payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non payment."[12] The reason for this 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 workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.

In this case, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, the petitioners failed to discharge such burden of proof. Other than the payroll sheets for 1-15 May 2010, 1-15 November 2010 and 1-15 January 2011, no other evidence of payment for the benefits claimed by the respondent was presented by the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126639 dated 3 September 2013 and 28 November 2013, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Agnes Reyes Carpio, concurring. Rollo, pp. 17-22.[2] Id. at 24-25.

[3] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez with Commissioners Gregorio O. Bilog III and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., concurring. Id. at 67-73.

[4] Id. at 80-81.

[5] Court of Appeals Decision dated 3 September 2013. Id. at 17.

[6] Id. at 17-18.

[7] Id. at 18.

[8] Penned by Labor Arbiter Pablo A. Gajardo, Jr. Id. at 50-56.

[9] Id. at 21.

[10] 514 Phil. 488, 502 (2005).

[11] 497 Phil. 892, 923-924 (2005).

[12] Id. at 924.