Title
Burnea vs. Security Trading Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 231038
Decision Date
Apr 26, 2021
A construction worker, transferred between companies owned by the same spouses, claimed unpaid wages and illegal dismissal. Courts ruled partially in his favor, awarding some benefits but denying illegal dismissal claims due to lack of evidence and procedural issues. Attorney's fees and legal interest were granted.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231038)

Factual Background

In February 2005, the petitioner was employed by the spouses Ching initially as a construction worker for STC. After the project's completion, he transitioned to the role of a security guard with a monthly salary of PHP 8,500. In 2010, he was tasked with security at Far Eastern, another company owned by the Chings, where he was granted Authority to Sell the property he was assigned to guard. Following the sale of said property in November 2013, Burnea claimed he was not compensated for the first half of November and was subsequently told that he no longer needed to work.

Initial Complaint

Petitioner filed a complaint on September 25, 2014, seeking redress for various alleged claims including unpaid wages, overtime, holiday pay, and illegal dismissal. However, this initial complaint was totaled as the Single-Entry Approach (SENA) process closed, since he lodged a similar complaint with broader claims against all named respondents before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

NLRC Proceedings

The NLRC proceedings ultimately dismissed claims against the spouses Ching for lack of jurisdiction due to improper summons, and determined that STC had waived its defenses by failing to appear. Nonpareil maintained a stance denying any employer-employee relationship with Burnea, asserting he was not on their payroll.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On March 27, 2015, the Labor Arbiter issued a partial ruling in favor of the petitioner, confirming that STC owed him salary differentials, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. All other claims were dismissed due to lack of merit or jurisdiction. Importantly, no finding of illegal dismissal was made, as this was not formally included in Burnea's NLRC complaint.

NLRC Appeal Outcome

Burnea's appeal to the NLRC contested the dismissal of his claims, asserting an entitlement to back wages and benefits due to alleged illegal termination. However, on September 29, 2015, the NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter's decision, stating that claims for 13th month pay and overtime were not substantiated, and the absence of a formal inclusion of illegal dismissal precluded such consideration.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling in a decision dated December 2, 2016. It concluded that there was no grave abuse of discretion, aligning with NLRC's findings that various claims were either inadequately supported or not formally raised in petitioner's complaint.

Supreme Court Decision

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions below, emphasizing the lack of evidence to substantiate claims for illegal dismissal and the financial claims arising from it. The Court underscored that the burden of proof regarding dismissal lies initially with the employee, which Burnea failed to es

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.