Title
Etom, Jr. vs. Aroma Lodging House
Case
G.R. No. 192955
Decision Date
Nov 9, 2015
A roomboy dismissed in 2008 claimed unpaid wages; SC ruled in his favor, finding employer failed to prove payment and reinstated NLRC’s award of salary differential, 13th month, and holiday pay.
illegal dismissal
money claims
employer

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192955)

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged employment as a roomboy since 1997 with a monthly salary of P2,500.00, working from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday including holidays, performing cleaning and laundering tasks. He claimed that on February 4, 2008 respondent refused to allow him to report for work, did not inform him of any charge warranting dismissal, and denied him opportunity to explain. Respondent maintained that it employed petitioner since 2000, paid wages above statutory minimums, paid holiday pay, 13th month pay and overtime, and furnished meals, tips and commissions; respondent alleged petitioner displayed an adverse attitude, committed thefts, was charged with rape in 2003, engaged in violent incidents including a 2006 stabbing attempt and chasing co-workers with a knife, and refused to accept a memorandum requiring an explanation; respondent asserted termination for serious misconduct to protect employees and customers.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated August 20, 2008 finding that petitioner had been legally dismissed but nonetheless awarded monetary relief for procedural defect in termination and unpaid monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ordered payment of punitive damages in the amount of P10,000.00 for noncompliance with termination notice requirement, salary differential computed at P199,482.80, holiday pay of P3,107.50 and 13th month pay of P7,150.00. Respondent filed an appeal to the NLRC contesting underpayment findings and relying on a joint sworn statement in a separate labor case in which petitioner and a co-employee averred receipt of wages above minimum.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

The NLRC issued a Decision dated April 30, 2009 affirming the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings but deleting the award of punitive damages. The NLRC concluded that petitioner was underpaid, awarded a salary differential of P166,080.38 for the three-year period from February 20, 2005 to February 20, 2008, less ten percent for lodging and similar facilities, and affirmed entitlement to holiday pay and 13th month pay. The NLRC subsequently denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in a June 30, 2009 Resolution.

Petition to the Court of Appeals

Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending that petitioner had previously executed a notarized affidavit admitting receipt of wages and benefits above the statutory minimum, that respondent employed ten or fewer persons and was exempt from the Minimum Wage Law, and that its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was timely filed. Petitioner countered that the motion for reconsideration was filed late, that he was underpaid, and that his 2004 affidavit was executed under duress while criminal charges were pending and that he was illiterate and did not understand its import; petitioner further argued that the Court of Appeals erred in denying him the opportunity to file a reply or memorandum under Section 6 and Section 8 of Rule 65.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a January 21, 2010 Decision the Court of Appeals granted the petition and reversed and set aside the NLRC awards of unpaid wages, 13th month pay and holiday pay. The CA found that respondent’s motion for reconsideration had been timely filed and that if it had been late the NLRC would have dismissed it rather than resolve it on the merits. The CA placed evidentiary weight on petitioner’s earlier notarized joint affidavit admitting receipt of wages above the minimum and concluded there was no factual basis for the awards of 13th month pay and holiday pay. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a July 2, 2010 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner assigned errors to the Court of Appeals for (1) erroneously concluding that respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was timely despite documentary machine-stamped evidence; (2) improperly treating the joint affidavit as an admission against interest despite other evidence of underpayment and jurisprudence on quitclaims and waivers; and (3) denying petitioner an opportunity to file a reply or memorandum pursuant to Section 6 and Section 8 of Rule 65.

Standard of Review and Preliminary Doctrines

The Supreme Court reiterated that perfection of appeal within prescribed periods is mandatory and jurisdictional, that a motion for reconsideration at the NLRC generally must be filed within ten days from receipt of the assailed decision, and that the NLRC is not strictly bound by technical procedural rules and may liberally apply them in labor cases. The Court stated that certiorari review under Rule 45 is limited to determining whether the Court of Appeals properly found grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, but that conclusions of labor tribunals must nonetheless rest on substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the established labor rule that once an employee asserts nonpayment with particularity, the burden shifts to the employer to prove payment.

Analysis of Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration

The Supreme Court examined respondent’s explanation for an apparent docket-stamp discrepancy showing May 26, 2009 at 1:47 A.M., while respondent averred the motion was filed on May 25, 2009 and the docketing machine had erred. The Court found the explanation persuasive, observed that the NLRC accepted and resolved the motion on the merits, and cited Opinaldo v. Ravina for the proposition that the NLRC may liberally apply its rules and decide a motion for reconsideration on merits where appropriate. Accordingly, the Court concluded respondent’s motion for reconsideration was timely and that the NLRC’s consideration on the merits was proper.

Treatment of the Notarized Affidavit and Burden of Proof

The Court addressed the evidentiary effect of the notarized joint statement in which petitioner and a co-employee stated they received wages “lagpas sa ‘minimum wage’” without specifying amounts. The Court noted the presumption of regularity afforded notarized instruments but emphasized that such presumption is no

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms