Segundo v. PIMSAT Colleges

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242079. June 21, 2021.]

MARINA P. SEGUNDO, MERCEDES TAMAYO, JENNY MAE BIAY, ROSIE DE GUZMAN, JULIA * CENISAN, JAYSON A. BAYSIC, EDUARDO N. BAYSIC, AND JEROME POSCABLO, petitioners,vs. PIMSAT COLLEGES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242079 (Marina P. Segundo, Mercedes Tamayo, Jenny Mae Biay, Rosie De Guzman, Julia Cenisan, Jayson A. Baysic, Eduardo N. Baysic, and Jerome Poscablo v. PIMSAT Colleges). — In this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners ask this Court to reverse the Decision 2 dated October 6, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated September 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150039, which reinstated the Decision 4 dated June 21, 2016 of the Labor Arbiter (LA), dismissing their complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against PIMSAT Colleges for lack of merit.

ANTECEDENTS

In March 2016, Marina P. Segundo, Mercedes Tamayo, Jenny Mae Biay, Rosie De Guzman, Julia Cenisan, Jayson A. Baysic (Jayson), Eduardo N. Baysic (Eduardo), and Jerome A. Poscablo (Jerome; collectively complainants) filed their complaints 5 for illegal dismissal, underpayment and non-payment of salaries, 13th month pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, and moral and exemplary damages, against PIMSAT Colleges. In their Position Paper, 6 the complainants alleged that PIMSAT Colleges hired them on different dates to do the cleaning, laundry, and maintenance services for the school. They worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., each receiving a monthly salary of P3,500.00, except for Eduardo, who received P4,500.00 as a carpenter. On February 2, 2016, the school's management informed the complainants that new working hours from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. would be implemented. The complainants objected because there will be no additional compensation for the extra hour. On February 4, 2016, the complainants reported for work, but they were not allowed to enter the premises. The management informed them that they were already dismissed from employment and had been replaced. 7

Thus, the complainants separately filed an illegal dismissal complaint against PIMSAT Colleges. They claimed that PIMSAT Colleges' act of barring them entry from the workplace constituted constructive dismissal. Further, their dismissal was without the requisite notice and hearing. The complainants added that they were not paid their wages from February 1 to 4, 2016, as well as overtime and holiday pay during their employment. The complainants sought separation pay instead of reinstatement because their relationship with PIMSAT Colleges had already been strained. 8

For its part, PIMSAT Colleges asserted that the complainants are not even its employees. 9 Rather, the complainants are household helpers of PIMSAT Colleges' President and Executive Officer Atty. Rebene Carrera (Atty. Carrera), whose residence is within the school premises. Since Atty. Carrera is in Manila to attend to his personal needs most of the time, some school personnel would ask the complainants to do errands for the school during their idle and free time. In February 2016, the complainants left the household of Atty. Carrera without his knowledge and consent. PIMSAT Colleges was then surprised that an illegal dismissal complaint was filed against the school. PIMSAT Colleges posited that there was no illegal dismissal to speak of as the complainants abandoned their work as household helpers of Atty. Carrera. In fact, Atty. Carrera is willing to take them back because they still have cash advances that remain unpaid.10

In their Reply, 11 the complainants maintained that they are regular employees who are part of the janitorial staff of PIMSAT Colleges, as evidenced by their Identification Cards 12 and payslips 13 issued by the school. Further, they performed work necessary and desirable to the business of PIMSAT Colleges.

On June 21, 2016, the LA rendered a Decision 14 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The LA held that the complainants failed to prove by substantial evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The payslips were not certified by PIMSAT Colleges, and the Identifications Cards submitted were only that of Eduardo, Jayson, and Jerome. Even assuming that they are employees of PIMSAT Colleges, they failed to establish the fact of their termination. In their Position Paper, the complainants merely stated that they were prevented from entering the school premises without more:

Thus, without proof of a positive or overt act of dismissal, the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained. There is, thus, no valid or legal basis for the complaint of illegal dismissal against the Respondent [PIMSAT Colleges].

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 15 (Emphases in the original.)

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Decision 16 dated November 29, 2016, reversed the LA's ruling and declared the complainants to have been illegally dismissed. The NLRC found the payslips and Identification Cards sufficient to establish that they were employees of PIMSAT Colleges. Besides, PIMSAT Colleges did not question the documents' authenticity before the LA. The NLRC added that it is highly inconceivable that Atty. Carrera would employ eight (8) helpers when he seldom stays in his house. The NLRC gave credence to the complainants' assertion that they did not abandon their work but were prevented from continuing their employment by refusing them entry into the school premises. Furthermore, the filing of an illegal dismissal case is inconsistent with abandonment. Thus, the complainants should be reinstated and awarded full backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, unpaid salary, salary differentials, and holiday pay. However, the complainants are not entitled to damages for failure to establish bad faith on the part of PIMSAT Colleges. The NLRC did not also award attorney's fees. 17

The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Isagani Laurence G. Nicolas dated June 21, 2016 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, a new one entered declaring appellants as having been ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

Accordingly, appellee [PIMSAT] Colleges is ORDERED to REINSTATE appellants without loss of seniority rights and to PAY their full backwages, unpaid salary, salary differential and Holiday Pay, as follows:

1) MARINA SEGUNDO

 

A) Backwages
a. Basic Salary

2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b. 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c. SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
5/15/13 – 2/4/14	=	8.57 mos.
P233.00 – P134.62	=	P98.38
P98.38 x 26 x 8.57	=	P21,921.03
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	17.43 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 17.43	=	P49,568.83
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P91,188.29
		––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
5/15/13 – 2/4/14	=	8 holidays
P233.00 x 8	=	P1,864.00
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	18 holidays
P244.00 [x] 18	=	P4,392.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P7,774.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P167,899.40

 

2) MERCEDES TAMAYO

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
6/9/14 – 7/18/15	=	13.30 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 13.30	=	P37,823.60
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P57,522.03
		–––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
6/9/14 – 7/18/15	=	14 holidays
P244.00 x 14	=	P3,416.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P4,934.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P131,393.14

 

3) JENNY MAE BIAY

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759
C) Salary Differential
1/9/14 – 2/4/14	=	0.77 mos.
P233.00 – P134.62	=	P98.38
P98.38 x 26 x 0.77	=	P1,969.57
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	17.43 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 17.43	=	P49,568.83
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P71,236.83
		––––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
1/9/14 – 2/4/14
No holiday
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	18 holidays
P244.00 x 18	=	P4,392.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P5,910.00
		–––––––––		–––––––––
				P146,083.94

 

4) ROSIE DE GUZMAN

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
7/26/14 – 7/18/15	=	11.77 mos.
P244.00 – P134.63	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 11.77	=	P33,472.47
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P53,170.90
		––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
7/26/14 – 7/18/15	=	13 holidays
P244.00 x 13	=	P3,172.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P4,690.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P126,798.01

 

5) JULIA CENISAN

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
6/16/14 – 7/18/15	=	13.07 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 13.07	=	P37,169.51
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P56,867.94
D) Holiday Pay
6/16/14 – 7/18/15	=	13 holidays
P244.00 x 13	=	P3,172.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P4,690.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P130,495.05

 

6) JAYSON BAYSIC

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	–––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	11.07 mos.
P233.00 – P173.08	=	P59.92
P59.92 x 26 x 11.07	=	P17,246.17
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	17.43 mos.
P244.00 – P173.08	=	P70.92
P70.92 x 26 x 17.43	=	P32,139.53
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P173.08	=	P79.92
P79.92 x 26 x 6.40	=	P13,298.69		P62,684.39
		––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	12 holidays
P233.00 x 12	=	P2,796.00
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	18 holidays
P244.00 [x] 18	=	P4,392.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P8,706.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P140,327.50

 

7) EDUARDO BAYSIC

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	–––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	11.07 mos.
P233.00 – P134.62	=	P98.38
P98.38 x 26 x 11.07	=	P28,315.73
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	17.43 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 17.43	=	P49,568.83
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P97,582.99
		––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	12 holidays
P233.00 x 12	=	P2,796.00
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	18 holidays
P244.00 [x] 18	=	P4,392.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P8,706.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P175,226.10

 

8) JEROME POSCABLO

 

A) Backwages
a) Basic Salary
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 26 x 7.93	=	P52,163.54
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 26 x 1.43	=	P9,852.70	P62,016.24
		––––––––
b) 13th Month Pay
P62,016.24/12	=		P5,158.02
c) SILP
2/4/16 – 10/1/16	=	7.93 mos.
P253.00 x 5/12 x 7.93	=	P835.95
10/2/16 – 11/15/16	=	1.43 mos.
P265.00 x 5/12 x 1.43	=	P157.90	P993.85	P68,178.11
		––––––––	––––––––
B) Unpaid Salary
2/1/16 – 2/4/16	=	3 days
P253.00 x 3	=			P759.00
C) Salary Differential
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	11.07 mos.
P233.00 – P134.62	=	P98.38
P98.38 x 26 x 11.07	=	P28,315.73
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	17.43 mos.
P244.00 – P134.62	=	P109.38
P109.38 x 26 x 17.43	=	P49,568.83
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6.40 mos.
P253.00 – P134.62	=	P118.38
P118.38 x 26 x 6.40	=	P19,698.43		P97,582.99
		––––––––
D) Holiday Pay
3/2/13 – 2/4/14	=	12 holidays
P233.00 x 12	=	P2,796.00
2/5/14 – 7/18/15	=	18 holidays
P244.00 [x] 18	=	P4,392.00
7/19/15 – 2/3/16	=	6 holidays
P253.00 x 6	=	P1,518.00		P8,706.00
		––––––––		––––––––––
				P175,226.10

 

SUMMARY:

 

1) MARINA SEGUNDO	-	P167,899.40
2) MERCEDES TAMAYO	-	P131,393.14
3) JENNY MAE BIAY	-	P146,083.94
4) ROSIE DE GUZMAN	-	P126,798.01
5) JULIA CENISAN	-	P130,495.05
6) JAYSON BAYSIC	-	P140,327.50
7) EDUARDO BAYSIC	-	P175,226.10
8) JEROME POSCABLO	-	P175,226.10
		–––––––––––
TOTAL AWARD	-	P1,193.449.24 ===========

 

SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphases in the original.)

PIMSAT Colleges sought a reconsideration. It asserted for the first time that the complainants were not hired as regular employees and were only engaged on a per job, seasonal or contractual basis whenever PIMSAT Colleges is undergoing accreditation, evaluation, inspection, and assessment by various agencies and foreign visitors. 19

The NLRC denied PIMSAT Colleges' motion on January 30, 2017, 20 thus:

WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to modify, alter or reverse Our findings and conclusions in the assailed Decision, respondent-appellee's [PIMSAT Colleges] Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphases in the original.)

Hence, PIMSAT Colleges filed a certiorari petition before the CA. 22

On October 6, 2017, the CA issued the assailed Decision 23 holding that the complainants are regular employees of PIMSAT Colleges. The school contracted the complainants to do janitorial and maintenance services. However, the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in reversing the LA. The CA ruled that the complaint is dismissible for failure of the complainants to prove, by substantial evidence, the fact of their dismissal, as follows:

[S]ince there is no clear evidence that the [complainants] were dismissed by [PIMSAT Colleges], the Labor Arbiter was correct in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the assailed disposition reversing the same cannot be sustained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 24 (Emphases in the original.)

Only the complainants moved for reconsideration but were denied by the CA on September 18, 2018. 25 Hence, this recourse.

The complainants (now petitioners) asseverate that PIMSAT Colleges already admitted the fact of their dismissal when it stated in its petition filed before the CA that "it could not hire additional employees to be included in the payroll." It was then erroneous for the appellate court to dismiss their complaint on the ground that they failed to prove that they were terminated. Further, the act of preventing them from entering the school premises constitutes a positive and overt act on the part of PIMSAT Colleges to terminate their employment. The petitioners posit that being regular employees, they may be dismissed only for a just or authorized cause. They also claim that they were paid below the minimum wage prescribed by law; hence, they are entitled to an amount equivalent to double the unpaid amounts owing to them. Finally, the petitioners pray that attorney's fees be awarded because they were compelled to litigate to protect their rights and interests.

In its Comment, 26 PIMSAT Colleges counters that the petitioners failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The petitioners also failed to prove, by substantial evidence, that they were dismissed from employment. Since the dismissal was not shown, there is also no illegal dismissal. Consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to any monetary benefits.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious.

Preliminarily, only the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA's Decision holding that (1) there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties, and (2) the petitioners failed to prove by substantial evidence the fact of their dismissal. This means that PIMSAT Colleges is deemed to have acquiesced to the CA's ruling that the petitioners are its employees. In so far as PIMSAT Colleges is concerned, this conclusion of the CA is already final. 27 It cannot raise this issue in its Comment to the petition filed before the Court. Well-settled is the rule that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the appealed decision. 28 He may make counter assignments of errors, but he can do only to sustain the judgment on other grounds. He may not seek its modification or reversal, for in such case, he must appeal. A party affected by an adverse decision cannot suppose that the opposing party's appeal would also inure to his or her benefit, for not only are their interests separate and distinct, but they are completely in conflict with each other. 29 If he intended to question the lower court's judgment, he should have filed a timely appeal. 30

Accordingly, we will no longer delve into whether the petitioners are regular employees of PIMSAT Colleges. We shall limit our discussion on the substantiation and legality of the petitioners' termination.

At this point, we reiterate the general rule that only questions of law may be raised and resolved by this Court in a Rule 45 petition. We are not a trier of facts. It is not our function to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. 31 Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law the lower court may have committed. As a rule, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive, and this Court will not review them on appeal. In exceptional cases, 32 however, such as the instant case, when the findings are conflicting, the Court may review and re-evaluate the evidence on record. 33 Here, the LA and the CA are one in holding that the petitioners failed to prove the fact of their dismissal by PIMSAT Colleges. As such, they are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in their complaint. The NLRC, on the other hand, did not rule on the substantiation of the fact of dismissal and focused on PIMSAT Colleges' failure to prove abandonment of work by the petitioners. Given the differing factual findings and conclusions of the labor tribunals and the CA, we undertake to decide whether the petitioners abandoned their work or were terminated.

The petitioners failed to prove the

In illegal dismissal cases, the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal before the employer comes under the duty to discharge its burden to prove that it was not guilty of illegal dismissal. 34 Absent any showing of an overt or positive act demonstrating that the employer had dismissed the employee, the claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained as the same would be self-serving, speculative, and of no probative value. 35

We agree with the CA and the LA that the petitioners' bare assertion of dismissal from employment is unsubstantiated. The petitioners did not present corroborative and competent evidence to support their claim that after the meeting with the school management on February 2, 2016, where they objected to the increased working hours without the corresponding salary increase, they were barred from entering the school premises on February 4, 2016. The LA aptly observed that the petitioners did not even identify who terminated them. Too, there is dearth of evidence that after the February 4, 2016 incident, the petitioners exerted efforts to continue their employment, but PIMSAT Colleges did not heed their efforts. Interestingly, only on March 1 and 2, 2016 did the petitioners cry foul and file a case for illegal dismissal. We reiterate the basic rule of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation; mere allegation is not evidence. 36 On this score, it is well to point out that PIMSAT Colleges' alleged admission on the fact of the petitioners' dismissal in its petition for certiorari37 before the CA is without basis. There is nowhere in the petition that would indicate that PIMSAT Colleges admitted to having dismissed the petitioners. Instead, it consistently claimed that the petitioners were not its regular employees and were contracted only for specific jobs during the period of accreditation, inspection, and assessments of the school by government agencies and non-governmental organizations.

Since the petitioners had not satisfactorily established dismissal, the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal, i.e., that it was for just and authorized cause/s and with due process, did not shift to PIMSAT Colleges. 38 Nonetheless, the petitioners could not be deemed to have abandoned their work.

The petitioners did not abandon their

For abandonment to exist, the following elements must be established: (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act. 39 Therefore, mere absence or failure to report to work would not amount to abandonment. 40 There must be a clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship to constitute abandonment. 41 The burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer. 42

Here, PIMSAT Colleges did not present evidence to show the petitioners' clear intent to abandon their employment. To be exact, PIMSAT Colleges merely alleged that the petitioners left Atty. Carrera's household without the latter's knowledge and consent. Besides, it is a settled doctrine that filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the abandonment of employment. 43

When there is neither illegal dismissal nor abandonment, the appropriate course of action is to reinstate the employee without backwages. 44 However, in Dee Jay's Inn and Café and/or Melinda Ferraris v. Rañeses, 45 the Court deemed the award of separation pay proper since reinstatement is no longer possible and reasonable. In the present case, we do not find similar compelling reason and evidence to support the conclusion that petitioners' relationship with PIMSAT Colleges had been strained that would render reinstatement impracticable. The petitioners merely stated that their relationship had turned sour without more. We stress that the doctrine of strained relations cannot be applied indiscriminately since every labor dispute almost invariably results in "strained relations"; otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility is engendered between the parties as a result of their disagreement. 46 Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. The doctrine should not be used recklessly or loosely applied, nor be based on impression alone. 47

Accordingly, petitioners should be reinstated to their former position without loss of seniority rights, and PIMSAT Colleges should accept them. However, should petitioners voluntarily choose not to return to work, they must then be considered resigned from employment. 48 This is without prejudice to the willingness of both parties to continue with their former contract of employment, or enter into a new one whenever they so desire. 49

The petitioners are entitled to unpaid

The general rule is that the one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. When the employee alleges non-payment, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment rather than on the employee to prove non-payment. 50 This stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents — which 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. 51 PIMSAT Colleges failed to disprove non-payment of wages from February 1 to 3, 2016, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and holiday pay. Further, the petitioners were paid a monthly salary of P3,500.00, except for Eduardo, who received P4,500.00 per month, which amounts fall below the prevailing minimum wage 52 at the time of their employment. 53 Thus, they are also entitled to a salary differential.

The petitioners are likewise entitled to attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of the monetary awards, as the instant case includes a claim for unlawfully withheld wages. 54 They are being compelled to litigate for failure of PIMSAT Colleges to pay minimum wage and labor standards benefits. 55

Finally, the awards shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) perannum from the finality of this Resolution until fully satisfied. 56

The petitioners are not entitled to

The petitioners claim double indemnity for the unpaid benefits since they were paid below the minimum wage prescribed by law. Unfortunately, we cannot grant the petitioners' request.

In Marby Food Ventures Corp. v. Dela Cruz, 57 the Court clarified that the rule on double indemnity applies only if the employer refused or failed to pay the unpaid benefits upon order by a competent authority, to wit:

As for double the unpaid benefits, a modification in the CA ruling is in order.

Pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6727, as amended by R.A. No. 8188, petitioners are required to pay double the amount owed to respondents.

Section 12. Any person, corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or entity which refuses or fails to pay any of the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates made in accordance with this Act shall be punished by a fine not less than Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) nor more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor more than four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court: Provided, That any person convicted under this Act shall not be entitled to the benefits provided for under the Probation Law.

The employer concerned shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to double the unpaid benefits owing to the employees: Provided, That payment of indemnity shall not absolve the employer from the criminal liability imposable under this Act.

If the violation is committed by a corporation, trust or firm, partnership, association or any other entity, the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the entity's responsible officers, including, but not limited to, the president, vice president, chief executive officer, general manager, managing director or partner. (Emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, the petitioners argue that the rule on double indemnity applies only if there is refusal or failure to pay the adjustment in wage rate. They deny that they unjustly refused any payment that respondents are legally entitled to.

Petitioners' contention is well taken.

In Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., Dusit Hotel Nikko-Manila v. NUWHRAIN-Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter, the denial of the grant of double indemnity was anchored on the following:

The Court, however, finds no basis to hold Dusit Hotel liable for double indemnity. Under Section 2 (m) of DOLE Department Order No. 10, Series of 1998, the Notice of Inspection Result "shall specify the violations discovered, if any, together with the officer's recommendation and computation of the unpaid benefits due each worker with an advice that the employer shall be liable for double indemnity in case of refusal or failure to correct the violation within five calendar days from receipt of notice." A careful review of the Notice of Inspection Result dated 29 May 2002, issued herein by the DOLE-NCR to Dusit Hotel, reveals that the said Notice did not contain such an advice. Although the Notice directed Dusit Hotel to correct its noted violations within five days from receipt thereof, it was not sufficiently apprised that failure to do so within the given period would already result in its liability for double indemnity. The lack of advice deprived Dusit Hotel of the opportunity to decide and act accordingly within the five-day period, as to avoid the penalty of double indemnity. By 22 October 2002, the DOLE-NCR, through Dir. Maraan, already issued its Order directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its employees the total amount of P1,218,240.00, corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO No. 9; plus the penalty of double indemnity, pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6727, as amended by Republic Act No. 8188.

Here, there was no order from any competent authority advising the petitioners to pay unpaid employee benefits with sanctions for double indemnity in case of refusal or failure to correct the violation. Hence, it cannot be said that it refused or failed to pay any of the prescribed increases or adjustments in the wage rates to come within the purview of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6727, as amended by R.A. No. 8188. As such, there is no basis to hold the petitioners for double indemnity. 58 (Emphases in the original and citations omitted.)

Similarly, the records do not show that PIMSAT Colleges received an order from any competent authority directing it to pay the petitioners the benefits they are legally entitled to, but PIMSAT Colleges refused or failed to pay them. Hence, we find no basis to award the double indemnity prayed for.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 6, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150039 are REVERSED. PIMSAT Colleges is ORDERED to REINSTATE petitioners Marina P. Segundo, Mercedes Tamayo, Jenny Mae Biay, Rosie De Guzman, Julia Cenisan, Jayson A. Baysic, Eduardo N. Baysic, and Jerome Poscablo to their former positions without loss of seniority rights, and without backwages.

Further, PIMSAT Colleges is ORDERED to PAY the petitioners' attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary awards, in addition to the monetary amounts of unpaid salary, salary differential, 13th monthly pay, service incentive leave pay, and holiday pay awarded by the National Labor Relations Commission in its Decision dated November 29, 2016, in NLRC SUB-RAB-I-7-02-0044-16, NLRC LAC No. 09-002568-16, and NLRC SUB-RAB-I-7-02-0045-16. The total amounts awarded shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until satisfaction of the obligation.

SO ORDERED. (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Referred to as "Jovita" in some parts of the rollo.

1.Rollo, pp. 11-45.

2.Id. at 46-63. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

3.Id. at 65-67.

4.Id. at 97-100. Penned by Labor Arbiter Isagani Laurence G. Nicolas.

5.Id. at 128-142-A.

6.Id. at 149-153, Position Paper of the Complainants.

7.Id. at 150.

8.Id. at 150-151.

9.Id. at 143-148, Position Paper of Respondent.

10.Id. at 143-146.

11.Id. at 164-166, Reply.

12.Id. at 154-155. Only the Identification Cards or complainant Eduardo N. Baysic and Jerome A. Poscablo were attached to the Position Paper of the Complaints.

13.Id. at 156-163.

14.Id. at 97-100.

15.Id. at 100.

16.Id. at 102-120. Penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, with the concurrence of Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley.

17.Id. at 108-110.

18.Id. at 110-119.

19. See id. at 125.

20.Id. at 122-127.

21.Id. at 126.

22.Id. at 68-94.

23.Id. at 46-63.

24.Id. at 62.

25.Id. at 65-66.

26.Id. at 344-357.

27.Parayday v. Shogun Shipping Co., Inc., G.R. No. 204555, July 6, 2020.

28.City Trucking, Inc./Edles v. Balajadia, 530 Phil. 69, 76 (2006).

29.Silliman University v. Fontelo-Paalan, 552 Phil. 808, 817 (2007).

30.Id., citing Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. NLRC, 202 Phil. 850, 854-855 (1982).

31.Deocariza v. Fleet Management Services Phil., Inc., 836 Phil. 1087, 1097 (2018); Quintanar v. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc., 788 Phil. 385, 400-401 (2016).

32. See id., citing Manila Shipmanagement & Manning, Inc. v. Aninang, 824 Phil. 916 (2018), enumerating the following as exceptions: 1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises[,] or conjectures; 2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; 3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; 4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; 5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; 6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; 7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; 8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; 10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or 11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Id. at 925.)

33. See Alaska Milk Corporation v. Paez, G.R. No. 237277, November 27, 2019; Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Asprec, 832 Phil. 630, 642 (2018).

34.Santos v. U-Need Supermart, Inc., G.R. No. 202737 (Notice), June 6, 2019.

35.Alvarez v. OPSSS Cellphone Center, G.R. No. 252617 (Notice), January 13, 2021, citing Doctor v. NII Enterprises, 821 Phil. 251, 266 (2017); Guerrero v. Cabinet Specialist, Inc., G.R. No. 201899 (Notice), November 21, 2018.

36.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, id. at 264-265.

37.Rollo, pp. 68-94.

38.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, supra at 265-268.

39.Guerrero v. Cabinet Specialist, Inc., supra note 31. Doctor v. NII Enterprises, id. at 268.

40. See Roxas v. Baliwag Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 231859, February 19, 2020.

41.Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries, Inc., 459 Phil. 506, 516 (2003).

42.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, supra at 268.

43.MZR Industries v. Colambot, 716 Phil. 617, 627-628 (2013).

44.Doctor v. NII Enterprises, supra at 269.

45. 796 Phil. 574 (2016), cited in Doctor v. NII Enterprises, id. at 269.

46.Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, July 24, 2019.

47.Id.

48.Id.

49.Id.

50.Mariano v. G.V. Florida Transport, G.R. No. 240882, September 16, 2020.

51.Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 864 (2018).

52. See https://nwpc.dole.gov.ph/stats/summary-of-daily-minimum-wage-rates-per-wage-order-by-region-non-agriculture-1989-present/; last accessed: June 12, 2021.

53. See rollo, pp. 128-142-A.

54.Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., supra note 47, at 881.

55.Marby Food Ventures Corporation v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 244629, July 28, 2020.

56.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 279 (2013).

57.Supra note 51.

58.Id.