Case Summary (G.R. No. 224944)
Petitioner's Allegations and Employment Conditions
Zonio claimed that respondents failed to pay him for overtime, holiday and rest day premium pay, night shift differentials, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave. Additionally, he was suspended for 30 days without formal investigation for allegedly sleeping on duty and was later refused reinstatement. Accordingly, Zonio filed a complaint for illegal suspension and underpayment, including claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondents’ Position and Justifications
Respondents justified the suspension based on photographic evidence of Zonio sleeping while on duty and his failure to report to explain the incident. They argued that Zonio agreed to his salary and benefits as oriented, contended the minimum wage law did not apply to his category, and claimed damages and attorney’s fees for reputational harm from the complaint filing.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Zonio’s suspension was valid based on evidence. Zonio’s claims for overtime and premium pays were unproven. However, he was entitled to salary differentials from three years before his suspension, 13th month pay, monetized service incentive leave, and refund of cash bond deductions.
NLRC’s Ruling and Modifications
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, awarding entitlement to overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differential pay. Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) contesting these awards and seeking damages and attorney’s fees for themselves.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Reasoning
The CA partially granted respondents’ petition, deleting the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differential pay. The CA emphasized the necessity of concrete proof showing actual performance of overtime, holiday, or rest day work. Zonio’s submitted logbook entries were insufficient because they were self-made and not countersigned by supervisors or authorized representatives, casting doubt on authenticity and reliability. The submitted semi-monthly payroll did not correspond with the dates in the logbook. Consequently, the CA found the evidence inadequate to support monetary claims for overtime and premium pays.
Issues on Filing of Petition for Review
Respondents argued the petition was premature for lack of motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court petition. The Court clarified that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filing a motion for reconsideration is not a mandatory condition precedent to the filing of a petition for review on certiorari, as such rule provides the option to file directly without prior motion for reconsideration.
Court’s Authority in Reviewing Factual Findings
The Supreme Court acknowledged that factual findings by administrative bodies receive great weight and finality unless conflicting among labor tribunals. In this case, the NLRC’s findings conflicted with those of the Labor Arbiter and CA, warranting judicial review of the factual issues concerning Zonio’s monetary claims.
Burden of Proof Allocations in Labor Monetary Claims
The Court applied the established principle that the burden of proof depends on the claim:
- For claims like salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the employer bears the burden of proving payment.
- For overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials, the employee must first prove actual performance of the work entitling him to such benefits, since these are not incurred in the regular course of business.
Analysis of Evidence Supporting Claims for Overtime and Night Shift Differential
Zonio submitted logbooks detailing his shifts with incoming and outgoing guards’ signatures, reflecting 12-hour shifts from 7 a.m./p.m. to 7 p.m./a.m. Although not countersigned by respondents, these logbooks were regarded as prima facie evidence. Respondents did not present contrary evidence such as payrolls or daily time records to rebut the logbook or to prove payment of purported claims, raising the presumption adverse to them.
Rejection of Claim for Holiday and Rest Day Premiums
Despite the logbook entries of work shifts, Zonio failed to demonstrate that he worked on regular holidays or rest days. Thus, the claim for premium pay on such days was denied for lack of factual basis.
Determination of Overtime Pay and Night Shift Differential
Zonio was found to be entitled to overtime pay for hours worked beyond the regular eight hours in his 12-hour shifts. He was also entitled to night shift differential pay, amounting to not less than 10% of the regular wage for hours worked between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 224944)
Case Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio was employed as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., managed by respondent Romulo Q. Par, starting March 13, 2011.
- Zonio worked alternating 12-hour shifts, either from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. seven days a week, receiving a monthly wage of P8,500.00.
- Respondents deducted a cash bond and miscellaneous fee amounting to P120 monthly from his salary.
- Zonio claimed that the respondents did not pay him for overtime, holiday, rest day premiums, night shift differential, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, nor did they reimburse the incorrectly deducted cash bond and miscellaneous fees.
- On April 21, 2014, respondents suspended Zonio for 30 days for allegedly sleeping on duty, substantiated by photographs; however, no formal investigation was conducted.
- Zonio served the suspension period but was refused reinstatement upon reporting back on May 21, 2014.
- Consequently, Zonio filed a complaint for illegal suspension, underpayment, nonpayment of benefits, reimbursement of deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Positions and Claims of the Parties
- Zonio argued for payment of overtime, premium pays for holidays and rest days, night shift differential, 13th month pay, service incentive leave monetization, and reimbursement of deductions.
- Respondents justified the suspension based on photographic evidence of Zonio’s sleeping on the job and his failure to report for explanation upon instruction.
- Respondents contended that they properly oriented Zonio regarding his wage and benefits, which he had agreed to, and asserted that minimum wage regulations did not apply to their private security guards under applicable wage orders.
- Respondents further sought attorney’s fees and damages, citing harm to company reputation due to the complaint filed by Zonio.
Rulings of Lower Labor Bodies
- The Labor Arbiter found Zonio validly suspended due to sleeping on duty, which he did not dispute, and denied his claims for overtime, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differential due to lack of proof.
- The Labor Arbiter awarded Zonio salary differentials for three years prior to suspension, 13th month pay, monetized service incentive leave, and refund of unauthorized deductions.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling in favor of Zonio’s entitlement to overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials.
- Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which partly granted their petition and deleted the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials.
Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
- The CA emphasized that entitlement to overtime and premium pays must be supported by proof of actual work performance beyond normal hours or on holidays/rest days.
- Zonio’s evidence consisted mainly of photocopied logbook entries and a semi-monthly payroll report.
- The CA found the logbook entries inadequate to prove