FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207094. March 6, 2019.]
EIE MART KOREAN GROCERY/KOREAN FOOD TRADING/MR. TAE HO PARK, petitioners, vs.RICARDO G. MENTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207094 (EIE MART KOREAN GROCERY/KOREAN FOOD TRADING/MR. TAE HO PARK, Petitioners, v. RICARDO G. MENTE, Respondent.) — The petitioners EIE Mart Korean Grocery/Korean Food Trading/Tae Ho Park assails the decision 1 dated January 22, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 123061, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the monetary claims prayed for by the respondent and thereby modified the resolution 2 of National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 06-001630-11 (8).
The respective versions of the facts by the parties were summarized by the CA as follows:
According to the Petition: private respondent EIE Mart Korean Grocery/Korean Food Trading (EIE Mart) is a domestic corporation engaged in the selling of Korean food with the other private respondent Tae Ho Park (Park) as its president/owner; EIE hired petitioner Ricardo G. Mente (Mente) as a company driver on May 14, 2005; Mente worked seven days a week, at least eight hours a day, and was paid a monthly salary of P17,000.00; on October 9, 2010, Park terminated Mente's employment with EIE Mart by telling him that he is out of the company; after a short while, Ronald Cabalsa, Park's police escort, told Mente "Eto and [sic] sweldo mo, huwag ka na raw pumasok, tanggalin ka na" giving his salary up to that day; thereafter, he was no longer allowed to work.
In their Position Paper, private respondents alleged that: EIE Mart is a sole proprietorship registered and conducting business under the name of Margarita Asistin Anies (Anies); Mente was working as a company driver receiving a monthly salary of P17,000.00 inclusive of other monetary benefits; he works from 8:00 o'clock in the morning up to 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon or sometimes up to 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon; sometime in September 2010, Mente asked if he could take some vacation time as he was already tired of his work, Anies did not allow Mente vacation time because there was no available substitute driver; nevertheless, Mente did not report for work on October 8, 2010; after several days, EIE Mart tried to get in touch with Mente, to no avail; it came as a surprise to private respondents when they learned of the complaint filed by Mente for illegal dismissal and other monetary benefits; despite the filing of the complaint, private respondents again tried to contact Mente to ask him to report for work immediately, but Mente did not want to talk to them; Anies then sent a letter dated January 7, 2011 to Mente requiring him to report to work within five (5) days from receipt of the said letter; but again, Mente still did not report for work. 3 CAIHTE
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On May 6, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision 4 dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent for failure to prove the fact of his dismissal with clear, positive and convincing proof. 5 Anent the respondent's entitlement to other monetary benefits such as holiday pay, holiday premium, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay, the LA ruled that petitioner EIE Mart's allegation that since the respondent was already receiving a monthly salary of P17,000.00 which was higher than the prevailing minimum monthly basic salary of P14,552.86, indicated that these other monetary benefits may be deemed included in Mente's monthly salary. 6
Ruling of the NLRC
In a resolution 7 dated September 26, 2011, the NLRC dismissed the respondent's appeal for lack of merit. The Commission found inconsistencies in the testimonies of herein respondent and his witnesses which rendered as doubtful the respondent's claim of illegal dismissal.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA to challenge the NLRC's resolution.
Ruling of the CA
In the now assailed decision, the CA upheld the findings of the NLRC and the LA that herein petitioner did not illegally terminate the respondent. 8 However, the CA disagreed with the LA's disquisition that the respondent was not entitled to monetary benefits, thus:
It is incumbent upon EIE Mart, the employer, to show and prove that it had paid the overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, and not simply make a general statement that the salary paid to Mente, the employee, is incorporated in his high salary. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
In the case at bar, EIE Mart failed to show a single document which would prove that it had paid the said benefits; and without proof, we cannot presume that Mente's benefits were paid along with the payment of his high salary for, doubts in the interpretation of the law are resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, the amount of salary to be paid and received is agreed upon by the contracting parties, while payment of benefits is a legal obligation. EIE Mart must show some form of writing or documentation to show that the salary paid to Mente indeed included the benefits applied for by him in his complaint. 9
Nevertheless, the CA held that the respondent was only entitled to 13th month pay from 2007 to 2010 since most of the other monetary benefits he was claiming had already prescribed pursuant to Article 291 10 of the Labor Code. 11 DETACa
The petitioner EIE Mart filed the present petition questioning the CA's award of 13th month pay. It maintained that the respondent's salary of P17,000.00 was already above board and should have been deemed to have included other monetary benefits; 12 and that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC with regard to the respondent's non-entitlement to the other monetary benefits should have been controlling and incontrovertible. 13
Issue
Did the CA err in awarding monetary benefits in favor of the respondent?
Our Ruling
We DENY the petition.
In claims of non-payment of monetary benefits, the rule had always been that the one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; and while it is the employee who alleges non-payment, it is incumbent upon the employer to prove otherwise. 14
Here, petitioner EIE failed to offer any proof that the respondent's salary was inclusive of the other monetary benefits. Even in the petition filed before Us, it never bothered to attach documentary evidence presumed to be in its possession, and tending to prove that the other monetary benefits were already included in respondent's monthly salary. Thusly, We cannot fault the CA in awarding the respondent with his 13th month pay considering that the LA denied the respondent's claim for monetary benefits solely on the basis of the petitioner's allegation of having paid the respondent with a higher monthly basic salary:
Here, complainant was paid a monthly salary of P17,000.00, which is much more than P14,552.86, the required minimum monthly basic salary, including average monthly holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay for employees who work everyday (sic) of the year. Thus, we give credence to respondents' allegation that complainant's monthly gross take home pay of P17,000.00 already includes his payment for these benefits. 15 HEITAD
The above-quoted discussion clearly showed that the LA's basis in denying Mente's monetary claims is, at best, speculative.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit; and AFFIRMS the decision dated January 22, 2013 and resolution dated May 2, 2013 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123061.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 28-37; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.
2.Id. at 114-118; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog, III, with Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Commissioner Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
3.Id. at 29-30.
4.Id. at 98-112; penned by Labor Arbiter Marita V. Padolina.
5.Id. at 108.
6.Id. at 111-112.
7.Id. at 114-118.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 35-36.
10.Art. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
All money claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be filed with the appropriate entities established under this Code within one (1) year from the date of effectivity, and shall be processed or determined in accordance with the implementing rules and regulations of the Code; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
Workmen's compensation claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code and during the period from November 1, 1974 up to December 31, 1974, shall be filed with the appropriate regional offices of the Department of Labor not later than March 31, 1975; otherwise, they shall forever be barred. The claims shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with the law and rules at the time their causes of action accrued.
11. Rollo, p. 36.
12. Id. at 15.
13. Id. at 18.
14. Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. and/or Luchi Singh Moldes v. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018.
15. Rollo, p. 112.