You are on page 1of 3

It is the position of the complainants that they are entitled to their money

claims from the period of their employment sometime in 2008 up to filing of the
instant case. To substantiate the same, they presented the supposed copies of pay
slips marked as Annexes “E” to “W” to their Position Paper which show only the
amount of salaries they allegedly received from the respondent company.
However, a careful perusal of the same shows that the said pay slips do not
indicate the name of the company that issued the same. The dates indicated therein
written in ball pen were presumed to be indicated by the complainants themselves
because it was not proven by them who actually wrote the same. Moreover, there
was no showing that they actually started sometime in June 2008. However, what
was written therein was that the same were issued only sometime in 2014 which
can be presumed that they started working not sometime in 2008 but just recently
as pointed out by the respondents.

It is also the observation of this Office that some of the names of the
complainants were written in ball pen which were not also proven by the
complainants who indicated the same in those alleged pay slips.

To substantiate their arguments that they were not paid their salaries and
benefits in accordance with law, complainants submitted their individual
handwritten statements alleging therein the alleged periods of their employment
and the corresponding salaries they allegedly received from the respondents.
However, they were not able to present any iota of evidence to substantiate the
same. Aside from the pay slips which have allegedly been issued in 2014,
complainants also presented the Joint Affidavit of Money Claims indicating the
computation of their alleged entitlement but failed to present any basis thereof. As
this Office cannot lend credence on the alleged pay slips presented by the
complainants, hence, the claim for underpayment of salaries is denied.

Respondents, on the other hand, denied that complainants started working


with the respondent company sometime in 2008. In fact, the complainants made a
vague presentation of the periods of their employment with the respondent
company because of their failure to state the specific period they were assigned to
a particular project. As pointed out by the respondents, the alleged pay slips
presented by the complainants indicated that the same were issued only sometime
in 2014. By indicating the period when the alleged pay slips were issued only
proves that they worked with the respondent company only sometime in 2014. In
the absence of any evidence that will substantiate the complainants’ allegation that
they started working with the respondent company sometime in 2008, the same
cannot be given credence at all. In the case at bar, mere allegation is not an
evidence. ( Jimenez, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., 256 SCRA 84 (1996).

Moreover, respondents presented copies of payroll for the period February


25, 2014 to July 28, 2014 while complainants were assigned at Romeo Uy Project,
which were never denied by them. The same show that complainants were paid
their salaries in accordance with law, contrary to their allegation that they were
underpaid in their salaries. The said payrolls were never refuted by the
complainants.

As regards the claim for non-payment of holiday, holiday premiums and rest
day premiums, the same was not also substantiated by the complainants. In fact,
the copies of payroll presented by the respondents show that there were periods
that complainants were not able to complete the six-day working days in a week,
which this Office presumes that on the days the complainants failed to report for
work fell in holiday, which sustains the respondents’ allegation that they do not
require their workers to work during holidays and rest days. Hence, the claim for
holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest days is denied.

The claim for service incentive leave is denied. It was already established
that complainants failed to prove that they started working with the respondent
company sometime in 2008. On the contrary, respondents were able to present
evidence showing that complainants actually rendered work at the Romeo Uy
Project only from February 25, 2014 to July 28, 2014 which was even
substantiated by the copies of payroll which were also denied by the complainants.
Accordingly, the respondents are exempt from paying the complainants’ service
incentive leave pursuant to Article 95 of the Labor Code.

The claim for 13th month pay is granted which covers the period only from
February 25, 2014 to July 28, 2014. Respondents were not able to present proof
that complainants were paid their 13th month pay for the said period. Accordingly,
complainants should be awarded their pro-rata 13th month pay based on the daily
salaries they last received from the respondent company.

The claim for ECOLA is denied. The copies of payroll presented by the
respondents show that the salaries being received by the complainants were more
than the minimum wage which subsumed ECOLA was already incorporated
therein.
The claim for overtime pay is, however, denied. Complainants were not able
to present proof that they were authorized by the respondents to render overtime
work after completing the eight-hour work. Moreover, as declared by the Supreme
Court in Cagampan vs. NLRC, 195 SCRA 533 (1991), the employee must prove
his claims such as overtime pay before award thereon can be made against the
employer. Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said
overtime work was actually performed, before an employee may avail of said
benefit. (Lagatic vs. NLRC, 285 SCRA 251)

To sum it up, it is fundamental under the ordinary rules of evidence that the
party-litigant who alleges the existence of a factor or thing necessary to establish
his claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required
by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence. This defined as “such
conclusions.” (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635). Thus, it is a rule in labor cases
that the party-claimant has the burden of proving his money claims. (Jimenez, et al.
vs. NLRC, et al., 256 SCRA 84 (1996).

In Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO) vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
121439, January 25, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in this wise: “It was
incumbent upon private respondents (employees) to prove that they indeed
rendered services for petitioner, which they failed to do. It is a basic rule in
evidence that each party must prove is affirmative allegation. Since the burden of
evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or
complainant has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the
defendant or the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegation in his
affirmative defenses and counterclaim.”

You might also like