Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips
HOME
PHILIPPINE REPORTS E-BOOKS
REPUBLIC ACTS
CHIEF JUSTICES
NEWS & ADVISORIES
SITE MAP
ABOUT US
The Supreme Court E-Library
The E-Library Development Team
Toggle posts
A
A+
CLICK THE IMAGE TO SEARCH
CONTACT:
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Library Services,
Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000
(632) 8524-2706
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
Foreign Supreme Courts
Korea, South
Malaysia
Singapore
United States of America
View printer friendly version
353 Phil. 551
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998 ]
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR (HK) DISTRIBUTION, LTD., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (4TH DIVISION) AND EDGAR PHILIP C. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
The main issues to be resolved in this petition for certiorari are:
First
who has the burden of proving a claim for night shift differential pay,
the worker who claims not to have been paid night shift differentials,
or the employer in custody of pertinent documents which would prove the
fact of payment of the same? Second, were the requirements of due
process substantially complied with in dismissing the worker?
Petitioner National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. (NSC
for brevity), a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the
Philippines, manufactures and assembles electronic parts for export with
principal office at the Mactan Export Processing Zone, Mactan,
Lapu-Lapu City. Private respondent Edgar Philip C. Santos was employed
by NSC as a technician in its Special Products Group with a monthly
salary of P5,501.00 assigned to the graveyard shift starting at ten o
clock in the evening until six o clock in the morning.
On 8 January 1993 Santos did not report for work on his shift. He
resumed his duties as night shift Technician Support only on 9 January
1993. However, at the end of his shift the following morning, he made
two (2) entries in his daily time record (DTR) to make it appear that he
worked on both the 8th and 9th of January 1993.
His immediate supervisor, Mr. Joel Limsiaco, unknown to private
respondent Santos, received the report that there was no technician in
the graveyard shift of 8 January 1993. Thus, Limsiaco checked the DTRs
and found out that Santos indeed did not report for work on 8 January.
But when he checked Santos DTR again in the morning of 9 January 1993
he found the entry made by Santos for the day before.
Informal investigations were conducted by management. Santos was
required in a memorandum to explain in writing within 48 hours from
notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for
dishonesty, falsifying daily time record (DTR) and violation of company
rules and regulations.
On
11 January 1993 Santos submitted his written explanation alleging that
he was ill on the day he was absent. As regards the entry on 8 January,
he alleged that it was merely due to oversight or carelessness on his
part.
Finding Santos' explanation unsatisfactory, NSC dismissed him on
14 January 1993 on the ground of falsification of his DTR, which act was
inimical to the company and constituted dishonesty and serious
misconduct.
Thus, on 20 January 1993, Santos filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of back wages, premium pay for holidays and
rest days, night shift differential pay, allowances, separation pay,
moral damages and attorneys fees.
Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante found that Santos was
dismissed on legal grounds although he was not afforded due process,
hence, NSC was ordered to indemnify him P1,000.00. The Labor Arbiter
likewise ordered the payment of P19,801.47 representing Santos unpaid
night shift differentials.
NSC appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
In its Decision of 29 September 1995 the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter
holding that his conclusions were sufficiently supported by the
evidence and therefore must be respected by the appellate tribunal
because the hearing officer was in a unique position to observe the
demeanor of witnesses and to judge their credibility.
NSC imputes grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC in affirming
the Labor Arbiters award of night shift differentials and P1,000.00
indemnity for alleged violation of due process. It contends that the
question of non-payment of night shift differentials was never raised as
an issue nor pursued and proved by Santos in the proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter; that Santos was already paid his night shift
differentials, and any further payment to him would amount to unjust
enrichment; and, that the P1,000.00 indemnity is totally unjustified as
he was afforded ample opportunity to be heard.
We now resolve. A perusal of Santos position paper filed before
the Labor Arbiter reveals that the question of non-payment of night
shift differentials was specifically raised as an issue in the
proceedings below which was never abandoned by Santos as erroneously
claimed by NSC thus -
I S S U E S
1. Did respondent National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution Ltd. illegally dismiss complainant Edgar Philip Santos?
2.
Is complainant Edgar Philip Santos entitled to recover
unpaid salary, holiday pay, night shift differential, allowances,
separation pay, retirement benefits and moral damages?
And, in his prayer, Santos sought to be afforded the reliefs prayed for in his complaint.
The fact that Santos neglected to substantiate his claim for
night shift differentials is not prejudicial to his cause. After all,
the burden of proving payment rests on petitioner NSC. Santos
allegation of non-payment of this benefit, to which he is by law
entitled, is a negative allegation which need not be supported by
evidence unless it is an essential part of his cause of action. It must
be noted that his main cause of action is his illegal dismissal, and the
claim for night shift differential is but an incident of the protest
against such dismissal. Thus, the burden of proving that payment of such
benefit has been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no
evidence at all is presented by either party.
Moreover, in
Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission
we declared -
As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving
it. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule
is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than
on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of
showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
payment.
For sure, private respondent cannot adequately prove the fact of
non-payment of night shift differentials since the pertinent employee
files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents -
which will show that private respondent rendered night shift work; the
time he rendered services; and, the amounts owed as night shift
differentials - are not in his possession but in the custody and
absolute control of petitioner.
Private respondent has been in petitioners employ for five (5)
years - starting 13 January 1988 when he was hired to 14 January 1993
when his services were terminated - and petitioner never denied that
private respondent rendered night shift work. In fact, it even presented
some documents purporting to prove that private respondent was assigned
to work on the night shift.
By choosing not to fully and completely disclose information to
prove that it had paid all the night shift differentials due to private
respondent, petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the NLRC
for sustaining the Labor Arbiter when it ruled thus -
It is not disputed that complainant was regularly assigned to a
night shift (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.). Under Section 2, Rule II, Book
Three of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, complainant is
entitled to an additional benefit of not less than ten percent (10%) of
his regular wage for each hour of work performed. The record is bereft
of evidence that respondent has paid complainant this benefit. The best
evidence for respondent corporation would have been the payrolls,
vouchers, daily time records and the like which under Sections 6, 7, 8,
11 and 12, Rule X, Book III of the Implementing Rules it is obliged to
keep. Its failure gives rise to the presumption that either it does not
have them or if it does, their presentation is prejudicial to its cause.
We rule therefore that complainant should be awarded a night shift
differential but limited to three (3) years considering the prescriptive
period of money claims.
[10]
On the issue of due process, we agree with petitioner that Santos was
accorded full opportunity to be heard before he was dismissed.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard,
or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain
ones side.
[11]
In the instant
case, petitioner furnished private respondent notice as to the
particular acts which constituted the grounds for his dismissal. By
requiring him to submit a written explanation within 48 hours from
receipt of the notice, the company gave him the opportunity to be heard
in his defense. Private respondent availed of this chance by submitting a
written explanation. Furthermore, investigations on the incident were
actually conducted on 9 January 1993 and 11 January 1993. Mr. Reynaldo
Gandionco, petitioners witness, testified:
Q: I reform my question. Was there an investigation conducted on
the complainant regarding the alleged falsification of DTR?
A: Yes, maam, there was.
Q: Who was present during the alleged investigation? I am referring to the first investigation?
A: The first investigation we were many. We were Daryll Go, Joel Limsiaco, Edgar Philip Santos and me.
Q: When was the first investigation conducted?
A: On the night of January 9, 1993.
x x x x
Q: During the second investigation, who were present?
A: We were: Daryll Go, Edgar Philip Santos and me.
Q: And when was the second investigation conducted?
A: It was on January 11, 1993 in the afternoon.
[12]
Finally, private respondent was notified on 14 January 1993 of the managements decision to terminate his services.
Thus, it is clear that the minimum requirements of due process have been fulfilled by petitioner.
That the investigations conducted by petitioner may not be considered
formal
or
recorded
hearings or investigations is immaterial. A formal or trial type
hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due
process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy.
[13]
It is deemed sufficient for the employer to follow the natural sequence of notice, hearing and judgment.
[14]
WHEREFORE
, petition is DISMISSED. The NLRC
Decision of 29 September 1995 is AFFIRMED subject to the modification
that the award of P1,000.00 as indemnity is DELETED in accordance with
the foregoing discussion.
SO ORDERED
Davide, Jr., Vitug, Panganiban
, and
Quisumbing, JJ.
, concur.
Rollo, p. 57; Exh. 1.
Id., pp. 58-59; Exh. 2.
Id., p. 56; Exh. 4.
The other monetary
claims were not passed upon by the Labor Arbiter, i.e., back wages,
premium pay for holidays and rest days, allowances, separation pay,
moral damages and attorneys fees.
Rollo, p. 34.
Id., p. 50; Annex C."
Rollo, p. 54; Annex C.
See Seaborne Carriers Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 88795, 4 October 1994, 237 SCRA 343, 345.
G.R. No. 116960, 2 April 1996, 256 SCRA 84, 89.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 66-67.
[11]
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation v. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 98050, 17 March 1994, 231 SCRA 335.
[12]
TSN, 27 September 1993, pp. 20-23.
[13]
Llora Motors, Inc. v. Drilon, G.R. No. 82895, 7 November 1989, 179 SCRA 175.
[14]
Ruffy v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 84193, 15 February 1990, 182 SCRA 1.
© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.