Facts:

This case revolves around a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Rose Hana Angeles and Zenaida Angeles, who own and operate Las Marias Grill and Restaurant and Cafeteria Bar and Restaurant, respectively. The case stems from a series of complaints filed by several employees against their employers (petitioners) on June 30, 2000, in the Labor Arbiter concerning claims of illegal dismissal and money claims for unpaid wages and benefits. The employees asserted that they were underpaid, often receiving their salaries late, and were subjected to various forms of mistreatment. The complaint included allegations of illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries below the minimum wage, failure to provide Social Security coverage, non-payment of earned benefits, and forced unpaid overtime.

The Labor Arbiter issued a decision on June 30, 2000, ruling in favor of the employees, declaring that the petitioners had illegally dismissed certain complainants and ordering them to pay back wages

...

Facts:

Parties and Identities

• Petitioners:
• Rose Hana Angeles, doing business as Las Marias Grill and Restaurant.
• Zenaida Angeles, doing business as CafA Teria Bar and Restaurant.
• Respondents:
• A group of employees including Ferdinand M. Bucad, Charleston A. Reynante, Bernadine B. Roaquin, Marlon A. Ompoy, Ruben N. Laroza, Evangeline B. Bumacod, Wilma Caingles, Brian Ogario, Evelyn A. Bastan, Anacleto A. Bastan, Ma. Gina Benitez, Herminio Agsaoay, Norberto Ballasteros, Demetrio L. Berdin, Jr., Jovy R. Balanta, and Maribel Roaquin.

Underlying Complaints and Allegations

• Respondents’ Complaints:
• Alleged illegal dismissal of several employees, including claims that terminations were without just cause or due process.
• Money claims which included unpaid salaries, underpayment below minimum wage, and delays in salary releases.
• Non-payment of statutory and customary benefits such as night differential, holiday pay, cost-of-living allowance (COLA), 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.
• Non-coverage under mandatory benefits like the Social Security System (SSS).
• Additional Charges:
• Signing of blank payroll forms.
• Enforcing long hours of work with minimum work hour requirements (10 hours for stay-in and 9 hours for stay-out employees).
• Verbal abuses and physical mistreatment (e.g., splashing water on sleeping employees).
• Forcing ill employees to leave for their home provinces.

Employment and Factual Background

• Employment Details:
• A tabulated record of 17 employees provided information on positions, dates of hire, daily rates, and dates of dismissal or resignation.
• Specific instances noted include:

- Ferdinand Bucad, employed as manager from April 30, 1997, dismissed January 31, 2000. - Charleston Reynante, employed as supervisor from September 1, 1998, dismissed January 31, 2000. - Others who remained employed, voluntarily resigned, or were terminated under varying circumstances.

Administrative and Appellate Rulings

• Labor Arbiter’s Decision (June 30, 2000):
• Found petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal with respect to certain employees.
• Awarded backwages and separation pay computed from the dates of illegal termination until the decision date.
• NLRC Ruling (December 28, 2007 Decision and March 30, 2009 Resolution):
• Dismissed petitioners’ appeal on grounds that respondents failed to show substantive evidence of payment of claimed money, particularly in view of incomplete evidence regarding payroll deductions and benefits.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution:
• Modified the NLRC ruling by vacating the finding of illegal dismissal for respondents Ma. Gina Benitez and Demetrio Berdin, Jr., ruling that these employees had voluntarily left their jobs.
• Deleted the monetary awards (backwages and separation pay) for the said respondents.
• Affirmed that the evidence, including the disputed daily time records and payroll documents, was insufficient to disprove the administrative findings.
• Petitioners’ Further Submissions:
• Argued that respondent Joel Ducusin’s failure to report for work amounted to abandonment.
• Claimed that their documentary evidence demonstrated that all monetary obligations had been duly settled.
• Contended that the CA erred in its ruling by not accepting their evidence.

Issue:

Whether respondent Joel Ducusin’s absence from work should be deemed as abandonment or constitutes illegal dismissal.

• Petitioners argued that his failure to report for work, along with leaving the workers’ quarters, evidences abandonment.
• Respondents contended that his immediate filing of a labor complaint clearly showed he did not abandon his employment.

Whether petitioners have discharged the burden of proving that they have paid the monetary claims due to the respondents.

• Petitioners maintained that relevant documentary evidence (daily time records, cash vouchers, receipts, etc.) supported their claim of payment.
• The CA and NLRC found the evidence insufficient, noting issues such as missing or incomplete official payroll and daily time records.

Whether the administrative bodies (Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA) correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the alleged illegal dismissals and corresponding money claims.

• Petitioners argued the administrative tribunals erred in their factual determinations.
• Respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the findings were supported by the evidence on record.

• Whether the modifications rendered by the Court of Appeals—specifically, the vacatur of illegal dismissal findings for certain respondents and the deletion of monetary awards—were proper and supported by the evidence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)