SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 224944, May 05, 2021
REGGIE ORBISTA ZONIO, Petitioner, v. 1ST QUANTUM LEAP SECURITY AGENCY, INC. AND ROMULO Q. PAR, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, M., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141856 dated May 31, 2016, which deleted the award of overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day premium pay, and night shift differentials in favor of petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio (Zonio).
Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actually performed, before an employee may avail of said benefit. The same is likewise true for premium pay for holidays and rest days because these benefits are not incurred in the normal course of business. To support his allegations. [Zonio] submitted in evidence photocopies of the entries in the logbook dated 02 June 2012 until 21 August 2012 and semi-monthly payroll report for the period 01 June to 15 June 2013.In this petition, Zonio contends that the CA erred in deleting the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay. The entries in the logbook, which are the bases of Zonio's claim, contained the details of Zonio's shifts from June 2, 2012 to August 21, 2012. Respondents did not assai1 the entries in the logbook when Zonio first presented it before the Labor Arbiter. It is only in respondents' motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision that they questioned it. However, respondents did not present their own records, such as Zonio's daily time records, to contradict Zonio's claims.
However, the photocopies of entries in the logbook do not prove that, indeed, [Zonio] rendered overtime work beyond the normal work hours from 02 June 2012 until 21 August 2012. Rather, the entries were made by [Zonio] and other security guards themselves. Although these entries were signed by incoming and outgoing security guards. the same were not countersigned by their supervisor or any authorized representative from the place where they were designated. As such, it raises serious doubt as to whether [Zonio] actually rendered work on a given date and time.
Moreover, the semi-monthly payroll report presented by [Zonio] indicated that it only covered the period of 01 June to 15 June 2013 as opposed to the entries in the logbook which were all dated 2012. In other words, the payroll report submitted by [Zonio] does not clearly reflect that he performed overtime work during the period of 02 June 2012 until 21 August 2012 as indicated in the photocopies of the entries in the logbook.
(Zonio] likewise failed to adduce concrete proof showing that he had rendered service during regular holidays or that he had rendered service between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., so as to entitle him to premium pays and night shift differential. Thus, We find that the NLRC gravely erred in awarding him said benefits.14 (Citation omitted.)
A motion for reconsideration is not required for the filing of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. |
SEC. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.These provisions clearly do not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent. Section 2 states that "the petition shall be filed x x x from notice of judgment x x x appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration x x x." The use of the word "or" indicates an alternative or choice, as opposed to being mandatory. Verily, the petitioner has an option to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or directly file an appeal or a petition for review to the appellate court without filing a motion for reconsideration, as what Zonio did.
SEC. 2. Time for filing; extension. - The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment x x x. (Emphases supplied.)
As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final order.19 (Citation omitted.)Thus, Zonio's petition was properly filed.
The factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great weight and respect and even finality by this Court, except when their findings conflict with that of the appellate court. |
Zonio proved his entitlement to monetary claims. |
June 2, 2012 (1900H-0700H)25Admittedly, the logbook is only a personal record of Zonio and other security guards. It is not verified or countersigned by respondents. Anyway, the fact that the entries are not verified or countersigned will not militate against Zonio. The entries in the logbook are prima facie evidence of Zonio's claim. Prima facie evidence is such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is 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.34 Respondents dispute the veracity of the entries in the logbook, yet, they did not proffer evidence to rebut them, or show that they paid Zonio for the services he rendered on the dates and the hours indicated in the logbook. The best evidence for respondents would have been the payrolls, vouchers, payslips, daily time records, and the like, which are in their custody and absolute control. However, respondents did not present any of these. This failure gives rise to the presumption that either they do not have them, or if they do, their presentation is prejudicial to their cause.35 Moreover, respondents never denied that Zonio's normal work hours is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., which is in excess of the regular eight working hours a day. Neither did respondents claim that they did not authorize Zonio to render overtime work. In this regard, we have already ruled 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.36 Any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.37
July 4, 2012 (1900H-0700H) - July 13, 2012 (1900H-0700H)26
July 18, 2012 (0700H-1900H)27
July 20, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - July 21, 2012 (0700H-1900H)28
July 23, 2012 (0700H-1900H)29
July 25, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - July 28, 2012 (0700H-1900H)30
July 30, 2012 (0700H-1900H)31
August 18, 2012 (0700H-1900H)32
August 20, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - August 22, 2012 (0700H-1900H)33chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Anent night shift differentials, Zonio is entitled to not less than 10% of his regular wage for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.38 for the following hours and dates:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Inclusive Dates Hours Worked Number of Days Hours of Overtime per Day June 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 4 July 4-13, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 10 4 July 18, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4 July 20-21, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 2 4 July 23, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4 July 25-28, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 4 4 July 30, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4 August 18, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4 August 20-22, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 3 4
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141856 dated May 31, 2016 is MODIFIED in that petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio is entitled to the payment of overtime pay, and night shift differentials pay. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of Zonio's monetary award in accordance with this Court's ruling. The total monetary award computed shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.
Inclusive Dates Hours Worked Number of Days Hours Covered by Night-Shift Differential per Day June 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 8 July 4-13, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 10 8
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2Id. at 32-43; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court).
3Id. at 84-95.
4Rollo, pp. 81-83.
5Id. at 84-95. Zonio's Position Paper.
6Id. at 202.
7Id. at 203.
8Id. at 184-192. Respondents' Position Paper.
9Id. at 209-215.
10Id. at 218-227. Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Partial Appeal.
11Id. at 64-69.
12Supra note 2.
13Supra at 40. The dispositive portion of the Decision, reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryFOR THESE REASONS, the instant petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated 29 May 2015 and 22 June 2015, respectively, by the Third Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 04-001127115 (NLRC NCR Case No. 05-05898-14) are hereby AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that the award of overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day premium pay, and night shift differentials are hereby DELETED.14Rollo, pp. 39-40.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.
15Id. at 280-293.
16The Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. UY, 537 Phil. 18, 27 (2006).
17Castro v. Sps. Guevarra, 686 Phil. 1125 (2012); PNOC v. NLRC, 342 Phil. 769 (1197); Sps. Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, 680 Phil. 334 (2012).
18 479 Phil. 768 (2004).
19Id. at 782.
20Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418 (2015).
21Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 824 Phil. 864, 879 (2018).
22Id.
23Id. at 880, emphasis supplied and citation omitted.
24 LABOR CODE, Art. 87.
25Rollo, p. 99.
26Id. at 102-115.
27Id. at 121.
28Id. at 123-124.
29Id. at 127.
30Id. at 129-133.
31Id. at 135.
32Id. at 169.
33Id. at 172-174.
34Wa-acon v. People, 539 Phil. 485-494 (2006).
35Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019.
36Id.
37Id.; Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Co. v. Bagoy, 636 Phil. 705, 710-711 (2010).
38 LABOR CODE, Art. 86.cralawredlibrary