SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231444. November 20, 2017.]
JULIUS CALUMPITA CALIMOTAN, petitioner,vs. PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CORP. [PTRC]/ENGR. ENRIQUE K.P. TAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 231444 (Julius Calumpita Calimotan v. Petroleum Technology Research Corp. [PTRC]/Engr. Enrique K.P. Tan)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 26, 2017 Decision 1 and April 24, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 142219 for failure of petitioner Julius Calumpita Calimotan (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the denial of his complaint for illegal dismissal as well as his claim for payment of overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day pay, and special holiday premium pay.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that he was either dismissed from work or was prevented from returning to work, and the fact that he was asked to report for duty and was still included in the payroll for January 1-15, 2014, remained undisputed. 3 Further, the CA aptly held that petitioner is not entitled to overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day pay, and special holiday premium pay for his failure to substantiate that he rendered services during the said period. It is settled that the burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holiday and rest days lies with the employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of business, 4 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 229-237. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 254-255.
3. It is a settled rule that in the absence of any showing of an overt or positive act proving that petitioner was dismissed from employment, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained as the same would be self-serving, conjectural and of no probative value (MZR Industries v. Colambot, 716 Phil. 617, 622 [2013]).
4.South Cotabato Communications Corporation v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016, 793 SCRA 668, 687, citing Loon v. Power Master, Inc., 723 Phil. 515, 532 (2013); citing Lagatic v. NLRC, 349 Phil. 172, 185-186 (1998).