Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 130935 May 11, 2000
ALLAN VILLAR, DANILO INDITA, ARTURO MANIMTIM, GERSON DATALIO, GERRY
VILLARALBO, ALFONSO PIPINO, NOEL ANGAY a! E"E#UIEL MANIMTIM,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a! $I%TEC$ MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.&
!!N VI!!R, DNI!O INDI", R"#RO MNIM"IM, $ERSON D"!IO, $ERR%
VI!!R!&O, !'ONSO PIPINO, NOE! N$% and E(E)#IE! MNIM"IM, in this
petition for certiorari, assail for havin* been rendered +ith *rave abuse of discretion the
,- Ma. /001 Decision of the National !abor Relations Co22ission 3N!RC4 vacatin*
and settin* aside the Decision of the !abor rbiter, as +ell as its ,/ 5ul. /001
Resolution den.in*
reconsideration.
/
6I7"EC6 MN#'C"#RIN$ CORPOR"ION 36I7"EC64, a corporation dul. or*ani8ed
and e9istin* under Philippine la+s, is en*a*ed in the business of 2anufacturin* cartons
for co22ercial purposes. On different dates, 6I7"EC6 hired petitioners to perfor2
various :obs for the co2pan. such as slitter 2achine operator, in;2an, sil; screen
printer, truc; helper, rubber d.e setter, for;lift operator and stitchin* 2achine operator.
So2eti2e in March /00< petitioners, +ho +ere 2e2bers of the 'ederation of 'ree
=or;ers #nion, filed before the Depart2ent of !abor a petition for certification election
a2on* the ran;7and7file e2plo.ees of 6I7"EC6. "he petition +as *ranted and a
certification election +as conducted inside the co2pan. pre2ises on ,/ 5ul. /00<.
6o+ever, petitioners lost in the election as the 6I7"EC6 e2plo.ees voted for >No
#nion.>
On / u*ust /00< and the succeedin* da.s thereafter, petitioners failed to report for
+or;. "he. alle*ed that the. +ere barred fro2 enterin* the pre2ises of 6I7"EC6?
hence, the. i22ediatel. filed before the !abor rbiter separate co2plaints for ille*al
dis2issal and labor standards clai2s a*ainst 6I7"EC6, 6er2an ". $o, o+ner, and
Car2en &elano, *eneral 2ana*er.
Petitioners clai2ed that the. +ere su22aril. dis2issed fro2 e2plo.2ent b. the
2ana*e2ent of 6I7"EC6 in retaliation for or*ani8in* a labor union in the +or; pre2ises
as +ell as in filin* the petition for certification election before the Depart2ent of !abor.
"he. further averred that the. +ere paid dail. +a*es ran*in* fro2 P@/.-- to P/<A.--
+hich +ere belo+ the 2ini2u2 fi9ed b. la+ and that the. +ere reBuired to +or; si9 3C4
da.s a +ee; fro2 @ oDcloc; in the 2ornin* to 1 oDcloc; in the evenin* +ithout bein* paid
for the overti2e. Neither +ere the. paid their service incentive leave pa. and /,th
2onth pa..
Petitioners ori*inall. nu2bered t+ent.7three 3E,4 but fifteen 3/A4 of the2 desisted in the
course of the proceedin*s thus leavin* onl. the ei*ht 3@4 petitioners +ho pursued their
cause to the end.
E
On the other hand, 6I7"EC6 denied havin* dis2issed petitioners. It contended that
petitioners +ere probabl. stun* b. their defeat in the certification election such that the.
refused to +or; thereafter? that the 6I7"EC6 2ana*e2ent called their attention
concernin* their unauthori8ed absences +ithout leave but petitioners continued +ith
their leave en masse +ith the sole intention of cripplin* the co2pan. operations? and,
that petitioners could return to their :obs at 6I7"EC6 an. ti2e at their discretion. In
support of these alle*ations, private respondent presented in evidence the affidavits
,
of
e2plo.ees +ho initiall. :oined petitioners in filin* their co2plaints but later desisted fro2
pursuin* their clai2s. "he pertinent portions of the affidavits unifor2l. read F
E. "hat I hereb. state that I +as not dis2issed b. the co2pan. or its
officials, the truth of the 2atter bein* that I did not report for +or;
an.2ore after the certification election on 5ul. ,/, /00<, +hen our
#nion lost in the said election? that I +anted to resi*n fro2 the
co2pan., as I a2 hereb. resi*nin* voluntaril. fro2 2. :ob +ith 6I7
"EC6 MN#'C"#RIN$ CORPOR"ION?
,. "hat it is not li;e+ise true that I +as underpaid, or that I +as paid
salar. belo+ the 2ini2u2 fi9ed b. la+? that I +as receivin* 2. dail.
salar. in accordance +ith la+? and that I received all the benefits due
2e as e2plo.ee li;e holida. pa., service incentive leave and /,th
2onth pa. for /00< that I have no clai2s +hatsoever a*ainst the
co2pan. or its officials in connection +ith or arisin* fro2 2.
e2plo.2ent +ith the co2pan., and that the co2plaint I filed a*ainst
the co2pan. +as due to 2isunderstandin* and 2isconception of
+hat I perceived I a2 entitled to? that no+ I reali8e that I have nothin*
1
or I do not have an. valid co2plaint or clai2 a*ainst the 6I7"EC6
MN#'C"#RIN$ . . . .
"he. further sub2itted the hand+ritten notes of petitioners rturo Mani2ti2 and
E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 addressed to the 2ana*e2ent of 6I7"EC6. "he letter of rturo
Mani2ti2, the contents of +hich +ere substantiall. the sa2e as those of E9eBuiel
Mani2ti2, read F
;o po si Mr. rturo Mani2ti2 a. ;usan* loob na pu2unta at lu2apit
sa pa2unuan upan* hu2in*i nan* anu2an* financial assistance o
tulon* na in.on* 2aibibi*a. sa a;in lalun*7lalo na po para sa a;in*
pa2il.a, at ;abilan* na rin po an* a;in* tu+iran* pa*7a2in sa
;asalanan* a2in* *ina+a laban sa 2ana*e2ent na ;a2i po an*
na*dulot n* 2ala;in* ;asiraan at per+is.o sa in.on* ;u2pan.a
noon* na;araan dahil sa a2in* *ina+an* pa*ti*il sa a2in* trabaho
n* saba.7saba. n* +alan* paala2 o pahintulot sa 2ana*e2ent at
na*in* sanhi n* 2ala;in* pa*;alu*i n* ;u2pan.a.
;o po a. ;usan* loob na hu2ihin*i n* in.on* ;apata+aran sa
pa*;a;ataon* ito bilan* in.on* datin* 2an**a*a+a at sa ta*al po rin
n* a;in* serbis.o sa in.on* ;u2pan.a na sanaD. 2alu*od po
nin.on* pa*bi*.an an* a;in* ;ahilin*an.
;o po a. hu2ihin*i n* ;apata+aran sa 2ana*e2ent sa a2in*
2alin* pa2a2araan o pa*turin* sa 2ana*e2ent.
n* in.on* lin*;od,
3S*d.4 rturo Mani2ti2
On /A u*ust /00C a consolidated decision +as rendered b. !abor rbiter E2erson C.
"u2anon in favor of petitioners orderin* 6I7"EC6 to reinstate petitioners to their for2er
positions +ithout loss of seniorit. ri*hts and +ith full bac; +a*es, and to pa. their
2andated 2onetar. benefits co2puted as follo+s F
NME &G=$ES #GP%MEN" /,"6 MP SI!P
.VI!!R P/--,-CE.-A PE<,-EC.-- PE,--E./- P/,@AA.--
D. INDI" /--,-CE.-A /E,0/,.-- /,-1C.-A C1A.--
$. D"!IO /--,-CE.-A /-,1,<.-- @0A.-- C1A.--
$. VI!!R!&O /--,-CE.-- /C,/C,.-- /,,<1.,A /,@AA.--
. PIPINO /--,-CE.-A AE-.-- <,-.-- E,/<A.--
. MNIM"IM /--,-CE.-A A,0,-.0- <0A.0- /,@AA.--
N. N$% //A,<AC.EA 0<<.-- 1@.CA /,@AA.--
E. MNIM"IM /EE,-0/.CA A,0,@.-- <0<.0- /,@AA.--
On appeal b. 6I7"EC6, the N!RC in its Decision of ,- Ma. /001 vacated and set aside
the !abor rbiterDs Decision and ordered petitioners to report bac; to +or;, or if no
lon*er feasible, directed 6I7"EC6 to pa. petitioners their separation benefits. "he
N!RC ruled F
=e have pored 3over4 the records and +e find no proof to support the
Hlabor arbiterDsI contention that soon after the union to +hich
co2plainants belon* lost in the certification election, said
co2plainants +ere su22aril. dis2issed +ithout even the benefit of
due process. "here +as no record that the co2plainants +ere
ter2inated fro2 their e2plo.2ent. =hat is ver. revealin* is that the
da. after the. lost in the certification election, the. refused to report to
+or; for no :ustifiable reason +hich 2a;es us believe that the.
voluntaril. resi*ned . . . . the findin* of the !abor rbiter that the 2ere
fact that the. 3co2plainants4 filed the co2plaint for ille*al dis2issal
ne*ates a notion of abandon2ent is so speculative and con:ectural to
be sustained. "he filin* of their co2plaint for ille*al dis2issal
indicates that it +as nothin* but an atte2pt on their part to *ive
verisi2ilitude to their desire to *et even +ith respondents.
In vie+ of all the fore*oin*, the findin* of the !abor rbiter for ille*al
dis2issal a*ainst respondents, the a+ard of bac;+a*es in favor of
co2plainants is +ithout an. factual or le*al basis. 6o+ever,
co2plainants in their o+n free +ill and volition 2a. return to +or; +ith
respondents +ho are directed to accept the2 +ithout loss of seniorit.
ri*hts and benefits but +ithout bac;+a*es based on the principle of a
fair da.Ds +or; for a fair da.Ds pa. . . . . the alle*ation of co2plainants
that the. +ere underpaid +ithout statin* their respective specific basic
pa. and the basis of their clai2 that the. +ere underpaid cannot be
2
*iven credence. Mere alle*ations +ithout supportin* proofs are not
evidence in the2selves.
"heir 2otion for reconsideration havin* been denied b. the N!RC in its Resolution
dated ,/ 5ul. /001, petitioners are no+ before us i2putin* *rave abuse of discretion to
the N!RCJ 3a4 in rulin* that petitioners voluntaril. resi*ned fro2 their :obs and +ere not
ille*all. dis2issed? 3b4 in refusin* to correctl. appl. the la+ and :urisprudence relative to
burden of proof in ter2ination cases and 2one. clai2s of +or;ers, abandon2ent of
+or; and offers 2ade b. a part. in the course of liti*ation? and, 3c4 in rulin* that
petitioners did not state their respective specific basic pa. and the basis of their clai2
that the. +ere underpaid.
"he pivotal issues to be resolved areJ first, +hether petitioners deliberatel. and
un:ustifiabl. abandoned their e2plo.2ent, or +ere ille*all. dis2issed b. the
2ana*e2ent of 6I7"EC6? and second, +hether petitioners are entitled to bac; +a*es
and other 2onetar. benefits.
"he first issue involves a Buestion of fact. It is +ell7settled that factual findin*s of quasi-
judicial a*encies such as the N!RC are *enerall. accorded not onl. respect but, at
ti2es, even finalit.. 6o+ever, the rule is not absolute and ad2its of certain +ell7
reco*ni8ed e9ceptions. "hus, +hen the findin*s of fact of the N!RC are not supported
b. substantial evidence,
<
capricious or arbitrar., and directl. at variance +ith those of
the !abor rbiter,
A
this Court 2a. 2a;e an independent evaluation of the facts of the
case.
=e find sufficient cause to deviate fro2 the findin*s of the N!RC. It is clear fro2 the
records that so2eti2e in u*ust /00<, i22ediatel. after petitioners supposedl.
>refused to +or;> havin* lost earlier in the certification election, several co2plaints for
ille*al dis2issal a*ainst 6I7"EC6 +ere filed b. petitioners. "hese are sufficient proofs
that the. +ere never *uilt. of leavin* their :obs. "he concept of abandon2ent of +or; is
inconsistent +ith the i22ediate filin* of co2plaints for ille*al dis2issal. n e2plo.ee
+ho too; steps to protest his la.off could not b. an. lo*ic be said to have abandoned
his +or;.
C
bandon2ent is a 2atter of intention and cannot li*htl. be presu2ed fro2 certain
eBuivocal acts. "o constitute abandon2ent, there 2ust be clear proof of deliberate and
un:ustified intent to sever the e2plo.er7e2plo.ee relationship.
1
Mere absence of the
e2plo.ee is not sufficient. "he burden of proof to sho+ a deliberate and un:ustified
refusal of an e2plo.ee to resu2e his e2plo.2ent +ithout an. intention of returnin*
rests on the e2plo.er.
@
6I7"EC6 failed to dischar*e its burden. =e find its evidence F consistin* 2ainl. of the
affidavit of e2plo.ees and the hand+ritten notes of rturo Mani2ti2 and E9eBuiel
Mani2ti2 F not enou*h to establish that petitioners indeed deliberatel. and
un:ustifiabl. abandoned their :obs. "he state2ents of the e2plo.ees in these
docu2ents, readil. ac;no+led*in* their *uilt and absolutel. e9oneratin* their e2plo.er
fro2 an. liabilit., +ere ri*idl. and unifor2l. stated, and appeared too *ood to be true.
=e are not una+are of the sche2es e2plo.ed b. 2ana*e2ent to e9tract favorable
state2ents fro2 their e2plo.ees and entice the2 to desist fro2 pursuin* their clai2s in
e9chan*e for so2e financial considerations or pro2ise of i22ediate e2plo.2ent or at
so2e future ti2e.
"he hand+ritten letters of rturo Mani2ti2 and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 spo;e of their
financial pli*ht. =ithout +or; the. found it difficult to ;no+ ho+ their basic needs could
be 2et. "he. are li;el. to be fa2il. 2en, horrified b. the thou*ht that the. could not
even provide sufficientl. for their .oun* ones. It is precisel. this situation that 2ust have
co2pelled the2 to surrender to 6I7"EC6 and see; financial assistance.
Neither do +e subscribe to 6I7"EC6Ds ar*u2ent that petitioners +ere hi*hl. s;illed
+or;ers, and that to abruptl. ter2inate their services +ould have a debilitatin* effect on
the co2pan.. In this countr., labor suppl. far e9ceeds the de2and. Sooner or later,
eBuall. s;illed +or;ers +ould be linin* up to fill the :ob vacancies. 6I7"EC6 apparentl.
adopted a rather unsound business polic. in ter2inatin* petitionersD e2plo.2ent,
preferrin* to bear the i22ediate and inconseBuential losses in profit +hich, it hoped,
+ould prove to be te2porar. and 2ini2al in the lon* run, as co2pared to the lon*7ter2
co2pan. losses that +ould result if the. co2plied +ith union de2ands. #nfortunatel.,
the. 2iscalculated its repercussions.
6I7"EC6 ne9t avers that it had e9pressed +illin*ness to reinstate petitioners to their
for2er positions in the co2pan., but the latter ada2antl. refused. Suffice it to sa. that
such refusal is understandable and should not be ta;en a*ainst petitioners. %ieldin* to
the co2pan. offer +ould deprive the2 of bac; +a*es to +hich the. are entitled thus
effectivel. ne*atin* their cause.
=e conclude that petitioners did not abandon their :obs but +ere ille*all. dis2issed
therefro2 b. private respondent. s a conseBuence, the. are entitled to reinstate2ent
+ith full bac; +a*es, undi2inished b. earnin*s else+here, to be co2puted fro2 their
ille*al dis2issal to their actual reinstate2ent.
0
On the second issue, the N!RC held that petitionersD clai2s for underpa.2ent of
+a*es, /,th 2onth pa. and service incentive leave pa. are +ithout basis.
=e disa*ree. First, petitioners e9ecuted a JOINT AFFIDAVIT
/-
specif.in* their dail.
+a*es, positions and periods of e2plo.2ent, +hich +as 2ade the basis of the !abor
rbiterDs co2putation of the 2onetar. a+ards. Second, all that the N!RC needed to do
+as to refer to the prevailin* 2ini2u2 +a*e to ascertain the correctness of petitionersD
3
clai2s. Third, and 2ost i2portantl., the burden of provin* pa.2ent of 2onetar. clai2s
rests on the e2plo.er.
//
In Jimenez v. National a!or "elations #ommission
/E
+e held
F
s a *eneral rule, one +ho pleads pa.2ent has the burden of provin*
it. Even +here the plaintiff 2ust alle*e non7pa.2ent, the *eneral rule
is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove pa.2ent, rather
than on the plaintiff to prove non7pa.2ent. "he debtor has the burden
of sho+in* +ith le*al certaint. that the obli*ation has been
dischar*ed +ith pa.2ent.
"he reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, pa.rolls, records,
re2ittances and other si2ilar docu2ents F +hich +ill sho+ that overti2e, differentials,
service incentive leave and other clai2s of +or;ers have been paid F are not in the
possession of the +or;er but in the custod. and absolute control of the e2plo.er. "hus,
in choosin* not to present evidence to prove that it had paid all the 2onetar. clai2s of
petitioners, 6I7"EC6 failed once a*ain to dischar*e the onus $ro!andi. ConseBuentl.,
+e have no choice but to a+ard those clai2s to petitioners.
'inall., +e note that the hand+ritten letters and affidavits e9ecuted b. rturo Mani2ti2
and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 parta;e of the nature of Buitclai2s. Nevertheless, a deed of
release or Buitclai2 cannot bar e2plo.ees fro2 de2andin* benefits to +hich the. are
le*all. entitled, or stop the2 fro2 contestin* the le*alit. of their dis2issal. "he
acceptance of these benefits does not a2ount to an estoppel.
/
6o+ever, it is but :ust
that the a2ounts received b. rturo and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 as consideration for the
Buitclai2s be deducted fro2 their respective 2onetar. a+ards.
=6ERE'ORE, the petition is $RN"ED. "he assailed Decision dated ,- Ma. /001
and Resolution dated ,/ 5ul. /001 of the National !abor Relations Co22ission are
SE" SIDE, and the !abor rbiterDs Decision of /A u*ust /00C is REINS""ED.
Private respondent is directed to reinstate petitioners to their for2er positions +ithout
loss of seniorit. ri*hts and +ith full bac; +a*es, as +ell as to pa. their 2onetar.
benefits in accordance +ith the co2putation 2ade b. !abor rbiter E2erson C.
"u2anon in his Decision of /A u*ust /00C. 6o+ever, insofar as rturo Mani2ti2 and
E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 are concerned, this case is re2anded to the !abor rbiter for
purposes of deter2inin* the a2ounts the. received as consideration for their Buitclai2s
and thereafter deductin* these a2ounts fro2 their 2onetar. a+ards. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
4