Reggie alleged that on March 13, 2011, he was hired as a security guard by the employer security agency. Reggie stated that he worked seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., alternately every two weeks, for a monthly salary of Php8,500.00. Reggie mentioned that his employer did not pay him for overtime work, work rendered on holidays and rest days, as well as 13th month pay, service incentive leave, and night shift differentials.
Reggie also alleged that on April 21, 2014, he, along with some of his colleagues, received a memorandum suspending them from employment starting April 21, 2014 up to May 20, 2014 without any formal investigation. Reggie claimed that he served the suspension and reported back to work on May 21, 2014. The employer security agency, however, refused to accept him.
Thus, Reggie filed a complaint against the employer security agency for illegal suspension; underpayment of salary and 13th month pay; non-payment of overtime and holiday pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay; service incentive leave pay; night shift differentials; moral and exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees.
The employer security agency asserted that Reggie’s suspension was justified since its inspection team caught Reggie sleeping in his post on April 20, 2014. According to the employer security agency, Reggie was directed to report to the head office to explain, but Reggie disregarded the directive. Thus, in a memorandum dated April 21, 2014, the employer security agency suspended him for 30 days, effective April 21, 2014, until May 20, 2014.
As to Reggie’s money claims, the employer security agency argued that Reggie was oriented as to the salary and benefits to which he is entitled, and he agreed to the same. The employer security agency added that the applicable wage order provides that the minimum wage rate does not apply to persons employed in the personal service of another, such as a private security guard like Reggie.
The employer security claimed attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages for the besmirched goodwill and reputation that it suffered by reason of the filing of the complaint.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled that Reggie was validly suspended for sleeping in his post as proved by photographs, which Reggie did not dispute.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter also held that Reggie failed to substantiate his entitlement to overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differentials.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter, nonetheless, declared that Reggie is entitled to salary differentials, 13th month pay, and the monetization of his service incentive leave.
Reggie appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission and insisted on his entitlement to overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differentials.
The National Labor Relations Commission modified the Decision of the Office of the Labor Arbiter and granted such claims.
The employer security agency filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to question the awards of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differentials in favor of Reggie. It also insisted that the National Labor Relations Commission failed to award damages and attorney’s fees in its favor.
The Court of Appeals held that the National Labor Relations Commission erred in awarding him overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differentials. Thus, it partly granted the petition of the employer security agency by deleting the award of said benefits.
According to the Court of Appeals, entitlement to payment of overtime pay must first be established by proof that overtime work was actually performed. The Court of Appeals also ruled that entitlement to premium pay must first be established by proof that work was rendered during rest days and holidays because such benefit is not incurred in the normal course of business.
The Court of Appeals found that Reggie submitted in evidence photocopies of the entries in a logbook and semi-monthly payroll report for a certain period to support his allegations.
However, the Court of Appeals also found that the photocopies of entries in the logbook did not prove that Reggie rendered overtime work for such period. Said entries were found to have been made by Reggie and other security guards themselves. Although the Court of Appeals observed that these entries were signed by incoming and outgoing security guards, the same were not countersigned by a supervisor or any authorized representative of the employer security agency. According to the Court of Appeals, this raised serious doubt as to whether Reggie actually rendered work on a given date and time.
The Court of Appeals then found that the semi-monthly payroll report presented by Reggie revealed a period different from that entered in the logbook.
For the Court of Appeals, the payroll report submitted by Reggie did not clearly reflect that he performed overtime work as indicated in the photocopies of the entries in the logbook.
On Reggie’s claim for premium pay for holidays and night shift differential, the Court of Appeals ruled that Reggie was unable to adduce concrete proof showing that he had rendered service during regular holidays or rest days or that he had rendered service between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Reggie elevated his case to the Supreme Court.
Was Reggie entitled to the awards of overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, as well as night shift differentials?
The Supreme Court ruled that Reggie was not entitled to premium pay, but he was ruled to be entitled to overtime pay and night shift differentials.
The Court stated that in determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought.
On claims for payment of salary differentials, 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 in all illegal dismissal cases the burden rests on the defendant-employer to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff-employee to prove non-payment. This likewise 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.
On the other hand, for overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, the burden is shifted on the employee, as these monetary claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he, in fact, worked on holidays and rest days.
In the present case, the Court found that in proving his entitlement to the payment of overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and night shift differentials, Reggie submitted a photocopy of logbook entries which showed the dates and shift when he reported for work, as well as the specific tasks he performed on that particular work shift. The Court also found that before and after each particular work shift, the incoming and outgoing security guard will sign the corresponding entry in the logbook.
However, the Court discovered that the logbook did not contain information on whether Reggie worked on holidays or during his rest days. Thus, the Court denied Reggie’s claim for premium pay for lack of factual basis.
Nonetheless, the Court determined that the entries in the logbook revealed Reggie’s daily 12-hour shifts. Thus, the Court declared him entitled to overtime pay for such work performed beyond eight hours a day, or for four hours for every shift. Based also on the logbook, the Court found that Reggie was entitled to night-shift differentials for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
In this regard, the Court acknowledged the following facts:
- The logbook was only a personal record of Reggie and other security guards; and
- It was not verified or countersigned by officers or employees of the employer security agency.
However, the Court stressed that even if the entries were neither verified nor countersigned, the same would not militate against Reggie.
This was because the entries in the logbook were prima facie evidence of Reggie’s claim.
Prima facie evidence, said the Court, is such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group, or chain of facts constituting the party’s claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence. 1Wa-acon v. People, G.R. No. 164575, December 6, 2006.
In the present case, the Court recognized the employer security agency’s dispute on the veracity of the entries in the logbook. However, the Court noticed that such employer did not proffer evidence to rebut them or showed that it paid Reggie for the services he rendered on the dates and the hours indicated in the logbook.
The Court stressed that the best evidence for the employer security agency would have been the payrolls, vouchers, payslips, daily time records, and the like, which were in its custody and absolute control.
For the Court, since the employer security agency failed to present such documents, such failure gave rise to the presumption that either it never had them, or if such employer did, their presentation was prejudicial to its cause.2Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019.
The Court restated the established rule that the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.3Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019. Any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.4Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019; Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Company v. Bagoy, G.R. No. 168495, July 2, 2010.
The Court accordingly ruled that Reggie should be paid for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours. In addition, the Court declared that Reggie should be paid night shift differentials.
The Court thus partly granted Reggie’s petition and consequently modified the decision of the Court of Appeals by declaring his entitlement to the payment of overtime pay, and night shift differentials.
Further reading:
- Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No. 224944, May 5, 2021.
Subscribe to YouTube and Spotify
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
