SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 226629-30. November 14, 2016.]
P.M. PACIA CONSTRUCTION AND PABLITO M. PACIA, petitioners, vs. ALBINO E. MENDI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 226629-30 — P.M. Pacia Construction and Pablito M. Pacia vs. Albino E. Mendi
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari due to: (1) lack of clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed decision and resolution; and, (2) failure of the petition to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP Nos. 137735 and 137749 committed any reversible error in issuing its assailed Decision dated February 19, 2016 and Resolution dated August 19, 2016, which respectively affirmed with modification the therein assailed Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and denied the parties' respective motions for reconsideration thereto.
Petitioners question the grant in favor of respondent of service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and ECOLA by the NLRC as affirmed by the CA. According to them, respondent is not entitled to the same as he had not specifically set out the details of his claims for the said benefits. Petitioners point out that they presented evidence in the form of sworn affidavits of respondent's co-employees stating that the latter, as well as respondent, received all the said monetary benefits. The very same fact was also attested to by the company's project manager who was the officer tasked with the preparation and release of the employees' salaries and benefits. Petitioners argue that these sufficiently proved respondent's receipt of payment of the benefits being claimed by him.
Essentially, petitioners are asking the Court to re-examine the evidentiary weight of the evidence they presented below. The Court cannot, however, do the same in a petition for review on certiorari where only questions of law may be raised. It cannot re-examine the probative value of evidence presented unless the lower court or tribunal's appreciation of the said evidence is glaringly erroneous. 1 Here, there is no showing of such a patent error. On the other hand, the Court finds apt the following ratiocination of the CA on the matter of the award of labor standard benefits to respondent, viz.: cSEDTC
. . . [A]s to the award of other labor standard benefits to [respondent], We affirm the same. It is settled that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; for even if the plaintiff alleges non-payment, still, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment. The reason for the rule is that pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents — which will show that overtime pay, night shift differentials, service incentive leave pay and other claims of workers have been paid — are not in the worker's possession, but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.
In this case, [petitioners] have not established, by substantial evidence, the payment of the awarded 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and ECOLA to [respondent] who, in turn, is entitled thereto. Notably, [petitioners] were not able to present pertinent payrolls, ledgers or other documents showing payment of said labor benefits to [respondent] during his stint with the firm. The various affidavits of [respondent's] supervisors and co-workers attesting that said benefits were already paid are not too convincing without the presentation of the official payrolls and other related documents showing due payment of the same. If at all, said written declarations may be binding only with respect to the declarant. Considering that the employers have complete control over employees' records, the former could have easily rebutted the money claims against them, for all that they have to do was to present the voucher or payroll showing payment of the same. Thus, the employer's failure to adduce said documentary evidence leads to the reasonable conclusion that they have not paid said benefits and, therefore, they must be ordered to settle their obligation with their employees. 2
Moreover, it bears to stress that "factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court." 3
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated February 19, 2016 and Resolution dated August 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP Nos. 137735 and 137749.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Metro Transit Organization, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 743, 754 (2002).
2. Rollo, pp. 67-68.
3. Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Serna, 700 Phil. 1, 10 (2012).