WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent [petitioner] E.G. & I. Construction Corporation to pay [respondents] the following:
1. Ananias P. Sato - P 107,250.00
2. Anecito Parantar - 120,944.00
3. Nilo Berdin - 152,144.00
4. Romeo M. Lacida, Jr. - 138,594.00
Total Award P 518,932.00==========
The other claims and the case against respondent Edsel Galeos are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.17
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new one entered Dismissing the case. Respondents are however ordered to pay complainants' proportionate 13th month [pay] for the year 2004 computed as follows:
1. Ananias Sato - P 3,180.00
2. Anecito Parantar - 2,520.00
3. Nilo Berdin - 2,700.00
4. Romeo Laceda - _2,520.00
Total P 10,920.00
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the NLRC, dated July 31, 2006 and October 9, 2006, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the labor arbiter, dated July 27, 2005, is REINSTATED.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.24
The CA ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed. A written notice of dismissal is not a pre-requisite for a finding of illegal dismissal.25 Respondents did not abandon their work. They were refused entry into the company's project sites.26 As to the award of monetary claims, the CA decided in favor of the grant of the same. Petitioner corporation belatedly submitted copies of the weekly time record, payroll, and acknowledgement receipts of the 13th month pay. There was no explanation given why the said documents were not submitted before the Labor Arbiter in order to establish their authenticity and correctness, and to give respondents the opportunity to refute the entries therein.27
Hence, this petition.
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether the CA erred in reinstating the decision of the Labor Arbiter, declaring that respondents were illegally terminated from employment by petitioner corporation, and that respondents are entitled to their monetary claims.
We sustain the ruling of the CA. Petitioner corporation failed to prove that respondents were dismissed for just or authorized cause. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus probandi rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal of an employee is for a valid cause.28
For abandonment to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts.29 The employer has the burden of proof to show the employee's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient. There must be an unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to discontinue his employment.30
In this case, petitioner corporation claims that respondent Sato committed unexplained absences on May 20, 24, and 25, 2004 and on June 7, 18, and 23, 2004. However, based on the findings of fact of the CA, respondent Sato worked on May 20, June 18 and 23, 2004. This was based on the weekly time record and payroll of respondent Sato that were presented by petitioner corporation in its appeal before the NLRC. On respondent Sato's alleged absences on May 24 and 25 and on June 7, 2004, no time record and payroll documents were presented by petitioner corporation. With regard to respondents Berdin, Lacida, and Parantar, petitioner corporation alleges that they failed to report for work starting on July 22, 2004, and that petitioner even sent them letters advising them to report for work, but to no avail.
Notwithstanding these assertions of petitioner corporation, we sustain the ruling of the CA. The reason why respondents failed to report for work was because petitioner corporation barred them from entering its construction sites. It is a settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment.31 The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.32 Petitioner corporation failed to show overt acts committed by respondents from which it may be deduced that they had no more intention to work. Respondents' filing of the case for illegal dismissal barely four (4) days from their alleged abandonment is totally inconsistent with our known concept of what constitutes abandonment.
We sustain the ruling of the CA on respondents' money claims. As a rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even as the employee must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, rather than on the employee to prove non-payment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances, and other similar documents -- which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other claims of the worker have been paid -- are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.33
In this case, the submission of petitioner corporation of the time records and payrolls of respondents only on their appeal before the NLRC is contrary to elementary precepts of justice and fair play. Respondents were not given the opportunity to check the authenticity and correctness of the same. Thus, we sustain the ruling of the CA in the grant of the monetary claims of respondents. We are guided by the time-honored principle that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is the rule in controversies between a laborer and his master that doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing, should be resolved in the former's favor.34
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated October 24, 2007 and the Resolution dated March 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02316 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring; rollo, pp. 40-54.
2 Id. at 56-58.
3 CA Decision, id. at 41; NLRC decision, id. at 61-62; LA decision, id. at 142.
4 CA Decision, id. at 41-42; NLRC decision, id. at 62; LA decision, id. at 142-143.
5 CA Decision; id. at 42.
6 Also known as Aniceto S. Parantar, Sr. in other documents.
7 Also known as Romeo Laceda in other documents.
8 CA Decision; rollo, p. 41.
9 CA Decision, id. at 42; NLRC decision, id. at 62; LA decision, id. at 143.
10 CA Decision, id. at 42.
11 Id.; NLRC decision, id. at 62; LA decision, id. at 143.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 CA Decision, id. at 43; NLRC decision, id. at 62-63; LA decision, id. at 143-144.
15 Penned by Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon; id. at 142-148.
16 Id. at 145.
17 Id. at 147-148.
18 Penned by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy, with Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Aurelio D. Menzon, concurring; id. at 61-67.
19 Id. at 66.
20 Id. at 63.
21 Id. at 64.
22 Id. at 65.
23 Id. at 73-76.
24 Id. at 53.
25 Id. at 47.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 50.
28 THE LABOR CODE, Art. 277(b); Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 165968, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 245, 252.
29 Padilla Machine Shop v. Javilgas, G.R. No. 175960, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 351, 357.
30 Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 154503, February 29, 2008, 547 SCRA 220, 239.
31 Id.
32 Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573, 606.
33 Id. at 618.
34 De Castro v. Liberty Broasting Network, Inc., G.R. No. 165153, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 238, 251.