Cuizon v. CK Builders

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247328. June 14, 2021.]

PETER B. CUIZON, ROBERTO S. ALA, JR., GLENN J. LAAG, DIOSDADO CABUSAS, DENNIS F. ABALO, ROMEL D. CAPUYAN, DANILO E. BALILE, RONALD R. CADUTDUT, RICARDO C. COMPRA, CRISPEN S. TUMAMPO and EDGARDO C. CAPUYAN, petitioners,vs. CK BUILDERS and CHRISTOPHER L. KING, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247328 [formerly UDK-16436] (Peter B. Cuizon, Roberto S. Ala, Jr., Glenn J. Laag, Diosdado Cabusas, Dennis F. Abalo, Romel D. Capuyan, Danilo E. Balile, Ronald R. Cadutdut, Ricardo C. Compra, Crispen S. Tumampo and Edgardo C. Capuyan v. CK Builders and Christopher L. King). —

The Case

This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 10714-UDK entitled Peter B. Cuizon, Roberto S. Ala, Jr., Glenn J. Laag, Diosdado Cabusas, Dennis F. Abalo, Romel D. Capuyan, Danilo E. Balile, Ronald R. Cadutdut, Ricardo C. Compra, Crispen S. Tumampo, and Edgardo C. Capuyan v. National Labor Relations Commission — 7th Division, CK Builders and Christopher L. King, viz.:

1. Resolution 2 dated February 9, 2018 dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the directive to submit proof of exemption from payment of legal fees and to correct the verification and certification against forum shopping;

2. Resolution 3 dated February 21, 2019 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Antecedents

On January 5, 2016, Peter B. Cuizon, Roberto S. Ala, Jr., Glenn Laag, Diosdado Cabusas, Dennis F. Abalo, Romel D. Capuyan, Danilo E. Balile, Ronald R. Cadutdut, Ricardo C. Compra, Crispen S. Tumampo, and Edgardo C. Capuyan (petitioners) filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with money claims. 4 They averred that on different dates, CK Builders hired them to work on its construction projects for the following positions and salary rates: 5

 

Name	Date Hired	Position	Salary Rate
Peter B. Cuizon	October 9, 2014	Foreman	P400.00
Roberto S. Ala, Jr.	January 18, 2015	Carpenter/Mason	P300.00
Glenn S. Laag	November 17, 2014	Steelman	P300.00
Diosdado Cabusas	June 11, 2015	Carpenter/Mason	P300.00
Dennis F. Abalo	January 5, 2015	Foreman	P400.00
Romel D. Capuyan	May 15, 2015	Carpenter/Mason	P300.00
Danilo Balile	January 28, 2015	Mason	P300.00
Ronald R. Cadutdut	July 28, 2015	Mason	P300.00
Ricky C. Compra	June 20, 2015	Carpenter/Mason	P300.00
Crispen S. Tumampo	January 20, 2015	Carpenter/Mason	P300.00
Edgardo C. Capuyan	October 9, 2014	Warehouseman	P300.00

 

They worked six (6) to seven (7) days a week from seven (7) o'clock in the morning until five (5) o'clock in the afternoon or six (6) o'clock in the morning until ten (10) o'clock in the evening or at times, until six (6) o'clock the next day. 6

They were paid on a weekly basis and required to sign a "CK Builders Payroll" with only the name of payee, number and job title/skill written thereon. The amount they each received was not indicated. They were also deducted the cost of the personal protective equipment (PPE) issued them. They never agreed to this obligation. Apart from Edgardo Capuyan, their names appeared on the time record and payroll. 7

They repeatedly appealed for a minimum wage, overtime pay, premium pay for work done during rest days, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay to Rhea Amores (Amores), CK Builder site engineer, and Recky Macion (Macion), project-in-charge. But their pleas went unheeded.

Sometime in December 2015, they learned that a group of workers were paid 13th month pay, hence, they again demanded that Amores and Macion pay them the same benefits. But these persons did not respond. Later, they decided not to report to CK Builders unless their demands were met. CK Builders, however, did not even contact or instruct them to report back for work. 8

In its defense, CK Builders claimed that (1) petitioners were project employees, (2) they were correctly paid their wages and benefits, and (3) they were not terminated but the projects to which they were assigned had already ended which fact was reported to the Department of Labor and Employment-Region VII, Cebu City. 9

The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

By Decision 10 dated March 15, 2016, Labor Arbiter Bertino A. Ruaya, Jr. ruled that petitioners were not illegally dismissed but found that they were underpaid and their 13th month pay was not paid, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainants were not illegally dismissed. However, respondent CK BUILDERS is hereby directed to pay complainants the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND NINETY ONE PESOS & 33/100 (P186,091.33) representing their salary differentials and 13th month pay.

All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 11

The labor arbiter held that petitioners failed to prove that they were illegally dismissed. They admitted that they voluntarily stopped reporting for work as their way of boycotting their employer. On the other hand, it found that CK Builders failed to prove that it paid petitioners the full mandated minimum wage and 13th month pay. It did not proffer evidence like payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents to prove otherwise.

Only CK Builders appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) questioning solely the award of salary differentials and 13th month pay to petitioners.

The Ruling of the NLRC

By Decision 12 dated September 30, 2016, the NLRC affirmed with modification, deleting the award of salary differentials and 13th month pay to petitioners, except Edgardo Capuyan who was declared to be entitled to his proportionate 13th month pay for 2015. It gave credence to CK Builder's claim that the labor arbiter failed to consider its submitted payrolls for the period October 9-15, 2014 up to December 17-21, 2015 to prove that it had been paying petitioners the minimum wage. The NLRC also considered the newly submitted payroll for December 22-28, 2015 as proof of payment of petitioners' respective 13th month pay.

Petitioners thereafter went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under CA-G.R. SP No. 10714-UDK, seeking to reinstate the labor arbiter's award of salary differentials and 13th month pay.

Meantime, by Information 13 dated May 25, 2018, private respondent Christopher L. King (King) was charged with Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cebu City. 14 The case was initiated by petitioners who accused King of submitting fake payrolls to the NLRC. It was raffled to Branch 4.

Under Order 15 dated August 1, 2019, however, the trial court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Back to the CA-G.R. SP No. 10714-UDK, by Resolution 16 dated February 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the directive to submit proof of exemption from payment of legal fees and to correct the defective verification and certification on non-forum shopping.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution 17 dated February 21, 2019. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners' verification and certification was still defective for lack of competent identity of some of the affiants.

The Present Petition

Petitioners now implore the liberality of the Court to reverse the assailed dispositions in the interest of substantial justice. They seek to reinstate their petition for certiorari and to have their case decided on the merits rather than being outrightly dismissed on sheer technicality. They explain that they were not able to secure proof of indigency or certificate of no real property to justify their exemption from paying the docket fees because they found it difficult to be absent from their workplace which is situated outside Cebu area. Some of them do not have any government issued identification cards to serve as competent proof of their identity. Nevertheless, majority of them had already complied with the identity requirement, hence, they should be considered to have substantially complied therewith.

On the merits, they charge the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion when it accepted the payrolls submitted for the first time on appeal by CK Builders. They alleged that these payrolls were "padded" and falsified to make it appear that they received the minimum wage, when in truth they did not. Notably, the copies of the payroll they submitted before the labor arbiter did not contain any amount but only their names, positions, and signatures.

For its part, respondent CK Builders posits that the petition should be dismissed. The invocation of the Court's liberality should not be permitted for petitioners repeatedly failed to rectify the procedural defects in their petition. And even on the merits, the petitioners cannot claim the monetary award for (1) they were not illegally dismissed and (2) they already received the mandated salary and benefits due them.

By Resolution 18 dated June 3, 2019, the Court granted petitioners' ex-parte motion to litigate as pauper litigants.

Issues

I

Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it dismissed the petition due to procedural infirmities?

II

Are petitioners entitled to the award of salary differentials and 13th month pay?

Ruling

Technical rules should give

Procedural rules are essential in the administration of justice. For they were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. 19

Here, the Court of Appeals initially cited two (2) procedural infirmities in the petition filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 10714-UDK:

1. Only three (3) of eleven (11) petitioners were able to submit proof to justify exemption from payment of legal fees to allow them to litigate as pauper litigants; and,

2. Five (5) of eleven (11) petitioners were not able to submit competent evidence of identity when they signed the verification and certification on non-forum shopping.

On motion for reconsideration, while the Court of Appeals accepted petitioners' substantial compliance on the proof of their indigency, it still denied the motion because five (5) of eleven (11) petitioners were not able to submit evidence of their identities as signatories to the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

Indeed, competent proof of identity is required to ensure that the party who executed and signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping is the same party who appears before the notary public and affirms under oath that the allegations in the petition are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation; and his or her certification of non-forum shopping is likewise truthful. 20 Even then, however, the Court of Appeals here should not have perfunctorily dismissed the petition based alone on the failure of some of the petitioners to produce the required competent evidence of their identities.

In Victoriano v. Dominguez, 21 the Court accepted the verification and certification on non-forum Shopping even when it was not shown that affiant exhibited a competent evidence of identity, viz.:

Furthermore, in Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., et al., the Court ruled that competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the notary public. Specifically, the Court categorically stated that "[i]f the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards." This stems from the fact that a jurat simply pertains to an act in which an individual on a single occasion (i) personally appears before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (ii) is personally known to the notary public or is identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity; (iii) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (iv) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document. Added to this, the Court emphasized that the verification of a pleading is a mere formal, and not jurisdictional requirement. It is intended to secure the assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are true and correct.

As in Victoriano and the cited case of Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., 22 the notary public here before whom petitioners affirmed under oath their verification and certification of non-forum shopping was no other than their counsel of record in this case. 23 As such, the notary public himself personally knew petitioners and it would have been superfluous for him to still require petitioners, his clients at that, to present competent proofs of their identities. More so because, verification of a pleading is a mere formal, not jurisdictional requirement. To emphasize, it is intended to secure assurance that the matters alleged in the pleading by the party appearing before the notary public are true and correct.

In any event, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of Balile, Cabusas, Capuyan, Compra, and Tumampo that they did not have any government issued identification cards which they could have presented to the notary public who was also their lawyer of record. They were mere construction workers who were engaged on a per project basis by a private company. All they got were barangay clearances and community tax certificates which notably, both the labor arbiter and the NLRC accepted as competent proofs of their identities in the administrative proceedings.

Well-settled is the rule that labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy. 24 Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a part of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of non-compliance with the process required. 25

In fine, considering that what is at stake here is the laborers' entitlement to their money claims, the Court of Appeals should have relaxed the technical rules and resolved the petition on the merits in the higher interest of substantial justice. Unfortunately, it did not.

We keenly note that this case has been dragging for five (5) years already, hence, it is but proper that in order to avert any further delay, we now and here resolve the case on the merits, instead of tossing it back to the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners are entitled to salary

Petitioners have consistently objected to the belated presentation of the payrolls for the first time on appeal by CK Builders supposedly to prove that they were paid the minimum wage and 13th month pay.

In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This standard follows the basic rule that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment rather than on the employee to prove non-payment. The reason being that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents — which will show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid — are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer. 26

Here, the belated submission of the payrolls for the first time on appeal is highly suspect, if not deceptive. These payrolls have always been in the exclusive possession of the company, and yet, the same were not submitted before the labor arbiter even though these documents were the best evidence to support the company's defense of payment. Worse, CK Builders did not even bother to explain why it failed to present these documents at the very first opportunity when the case was initiated before the labor arbiter.

We cannot give credence to the claim of CK Builders that they already submitted these payrolls to the labor arbiter but that the latter did not consider them. As it was, the labor arbiter was very categorical in his ruling that petitioner failed to present evidence like payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents to prove payment of the mandated minimum wage and 13th month pay to petitioners. In fact, nowhere in the Memorandum of Partial Appeal of CK Builders to the NLRC when it supposedly submitted these payrolls to the labor arbiter. There was no proof at all of such supposed submission. Verily, evidence belatedly submitted on appeal, especially when their veracity and admission are strongly objected to must remain excluded. More so when, as in this case, there is strong evidence of falsity and fraud in getting them into the records.

Another. While the payrolls may prove that petitioners received their wages on certain dates, the payrolls do not competently establish the actual dates of employment. The best evidence would still be petitioners' respective employment contracts. Why did CK Builders fail to present these employment contracts in the proceedings both before the labor arbiter and the NLRC? Surely, they are deemed suppressed evidence, which if produced, presumably will prove prejudicial to the cause of CK Builders.

As for petitioners' 13th month pay, again, the payroll for December 22-28, 2015 purportedly showing payment thereof was belatedly submitted for the first time on appeal, sans any explanation whatsoever from CK Builders. Hence, like the other payrolls mentioned, this supposed 13th month payroll must also be excluded and disregarded.

All told, CK Builders failed to substantiate its claim that petitioners were properly paid the mandated minimum wage and 13th month pay. Consequently, CK Builders remains liable for petitioners' differential pay and 13th month pay in accordance with the ruling of the labor arbiter.

Consistent with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 27 CK Builders must also pay six percent (6%) legal interest per annum of the total monetary award from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the PETITION is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated February 9, 2018 and February 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP No. 10714-UDK are REVERSEDandSETASIDE. The Decision dated March 15, 2016 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 01-0014-16 is REINSTATED.

CK Builders is ORDERED to pay petitioners the following:

1. The total amount of P186,091.33 representing petitioners' salary differential and 13th month pay; and,

2. Six percent (6%) legal interest of the total monetary award from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SOORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 35-48.

2.Id. at 55-57.

3.Id. at 125-127.

4.Id. at 181-183.

5.Id. at 254.

6.Id. at 182.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 182-183.

9.Id. at 183.

10.Id. at 181-192.

11.Id. at 186.

12.Id. at 194-201.

13.Id. at 128-129.

14.Id. at 122-124, 128-129.

15.Id. at 325.

16.Id. at 55-57.

17.Id. at 125-127.

18.Id., unpaginated.

19.Malixi v. Baltazar, 821 Phil. 423, 435-436 (2017).

20. See id. at 445.

21. 836 Phil. 573, 593-594 (2018).

22. 760 Phil. 779 (2015).

23.Rollo, p. 48.

24.Anib v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 642 Phil. 516, 521 (2010).

25.Malixi v. Baltazar, supra at 447.

26. See Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 864, 879 (2018).

27. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).