-
5/20/2018 274. Villar v. NLRC (2000)
1/4
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 130935 May 11, 2000
ALLAN VILLAR, DANILO INDITA, ARTURO MANIMTIM, GERSON DATALIO,
GERRYVILLARALBO, ALFONSO PIPINO, NOEL ANGAY a! E"E#UIEL
MANIMTIM,petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION a!
$I%TEC$ MANUFACTURINGCORPORATION,respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.&
!!N VI!!R, DNI!O INDI", R"#RO MNIM"IM, $ERSON D"!IO,
$ERR%VI!!R!&O, !'ONSO PIPINO, NOE! N$% and E(E)#IE! MNIM"IM, in
thispetition for certiorari, assail for havin* been rendered +ith
*rave abuse of discretion the- Ma /001 Decision of the National
!abor Relations Co22ission 3N!RC4 vacatin*and settin* aside the
Decision of the !abor rbiter, as +ell as its / 5ul /001Resolution
denin*reconsideration./
6I7"EC6 MN#'C"#RIN$ CORPOR"ION 36I7"EC64, a corporation dul
or*ani8edand e9istin* under Philippine la+s, is en*a*ed in the
business of 2anufacturin* cartonsfor co22ercial purposes. On
different dates, 6I7"EC6 hired petitioners to perfor2
various :obs for the co2pan such as slitter 2achine operator,
in;2an, sil; screenprinter, truc; helper, rubber de setter,
for;lift operator and stitchin* 2achine operator.
So2eti2e in March /00< petitioners, +ho +ere 2e2bers of the
'ederation of 'ree=or;ers #nion, filed before the Depart2ent of
!abor a petition for certification electiona2on* the ran;7and7file
e2ploees of 6I7"EC6. "he petition +as *ranted and acertification
election +as conducted inside the co2pan pre2ises on / 5ul /00
-
5/20/2018 274. Villar v. NLRC (2000)
2/4
or I do not have an valid co2plaint or clai2 a*ainst the
6I7"EC6MN#'C"#RIN$ . . . .
"he further sub2itted the hand+ritten notes of petitioners rturo
Mani2ti2 andE9eBuiel Mani2ti2 addressed to the 2ana*e2ent of
6I7"EC6. "he letter of rturoMani2ti2, the contents of +hich +ere
substantiall the sa2e as those of E9eBuielMani2ti2, read F
;o po si Mr. rturo Mani2ti2 a ;usan* loob na pu2unta at
lu2apitsa pa2unuan upan* hu2in*i nan* anu2an* financial assistance
otulon* na inon* 2aibibi*a sa a;in lalun*7lalo na po para sa
a;in*pa2ila, at ;abilan* na rin po an* a;in* tu+iran* pa*7a2in
sa;asalanan* a2in* *ina+a laban sa 2ana*e2ent na ;a2i po
an*na*dulot n* 2ala;in* ;asiraan at per+iso sa inon* ;u2pananoon*
na;araan dahil sa a2in* *ina+an* pa*ti*il sa a2in* trabahon*
saba7saba n* +alan* paala2 o pahintulot sa 2ana*e2ent atna*in*
sanhi n* 2ala;in* pa*;alu*i n* ;u2pana.
;o po a ;usan* loob na hu2ihin*i n* inon* ;apata+aran
sapa*;a;ataon* ito bilan* inon* datin* 2an**a*a+a at sa ta*al po
rinn* a;in* serbiso sa inon* ;u2pana na sana 2alu*od poninon*
pa*bi*an an* a;in* ;ahilin*an.
;o po a hu2ihin*i n* ;apata+aran sa 2ana*e2ent sa a2in*2alin*
pa2a2araan o pa*turin* sa 2ana*e2ent.
n* inon* lin*;od,
3S*d.4 rturo Mani2ti2
On /A u*ust /00 a consolidated decision +as rendered b !abor
rbiter E2erson C."u2anon in favor of petitioners orderin* 6I7"EC6
to reinstate petitioners to their for2erpositions +ithout loss of
seniorit ri*hts and +ith full bac; +a*es, and to pa their2andated
2onetar benefits co2puted as follo+s F
NME &G=$ES #GP%MEN" /"6 MP SI!P
.VI!!R P/--,-.-A P
-
5/20/2018 274. Villar v. NLRC (2000)
3/4
*iven credence. Mere alle*ations +ithout supportin* proofs are
notevidence in the2selves.
"heir 2otion for reconsideration havin* been denied b the N!RC
in its Resolutiondated / 5ul /001, petitioners are no+ before us
i2putin* *rave abuse of discretion tothe N!RCJ 3a4 in rulin* that
petitioners voluntaril resi*ned fro2 their :obs and +ere
notille*all dis2issed? 3b4 in refusin* to correctl appl the la+ and
:urisprudence relative toburden of proof in ter2ination cases and
2one clai2s of +or;ers, abandon2ent of+or; and offers 2ade b a part
in the course of liti*ation? and, 3c4 in rulin* thatpetitioners did
not state their respective specific basic pa and the basis of their
clai2that the +ere underpaid.
"he pivotal issues to be resolved areJfirst, +hether petitioners
deliberatel andun:ustifiabl abandoned their e2plo2ent, or +ere
ille*all dis2issed b the2ana*e2ent of 6I7"EC6? and second, +hether
petitioners are entitled to bac; +a*esand other 2onetar
benefits.
"he first issue involves a Buestion of fact. I t is +ell7settled
that factual findin*s of quasi-
judiciala*encies such as the N!RC are *enerall accorded not onl
respect but, atti2es, even finalit. 6o+ever, the rule is not
absolute and ad2its of certain +ell7reco*ni8ed e9ceptions. "hus,
+hen the findin*s of fact of the N!RC are not supportedb
substantial evidence, havin* lost earlier in the certification
election, several co2plaints forille*al dis2issal a*ainst 6I7"EC6
+ere filed b petitioners. "hese are sufficient proofsthat the +ere
never *uilt of leavin* their :obs. "he concept of abandon2ent of
+or; isinconsistent +ith the i22ediate filin* of co2plaints for
ille*al dis2issal. n e2ploee
+ho too; steps to protest his laoff could not b an lo*ic be said
to have abandonedhis +or;.
bandon2ent is a 2atter of intention and cannot li*htl be
presu2ed fro2 certaineBuivocal acts. "o constitute abandon2ent,
there 2ust be clear proof of deliberate andun:ustified intent to
sever the e2ploer7e2ploee relationship.1Mere absence of thee2ploee
is not sufficient. "he burden of proof to sho+ a deliberate and
un:ustifiedrefusal of an e2ploee to resu2e his e2plo2ent +ithout an
intention of returnin*rests on the e2ploer.@
6I7"EC6 failed to dischar*e its burden. =e find its evidence F
consistin* 2ainl of theaffidavitof e2ploees and the hand+ritten
notes of rturo Mani2ti2 and E9eBuiel
Mani2ti2 F not enou*h to establish that petitioners indeed
deliberatel andun:ustifiabl abandoned their :obs. "he state2ents of
the e2ploees in thesedocu2ents, readil ac;no+led*in* their *uilt
and absolutel e9oneratin* their e2ploerfro2 an liabilit, +ere
ri*idl and unifor2l stated, and appeared too *ood to be true.=e are
not una+are of the sche2es e2ploed b 2ana*e2ent to e9tract
favorablestate2ents fro2 their e2ploees and entice the2 to desist
fro2 pursuin* their clai2s in
e9chan*e for so2e financial considerations or pro2ise of
i22ediate e2plo2ent or atso2e future ti2e.
"he hand+ritten letters of rturo Mani2ti2 and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2
spo;e of theirfinancial pli*ht. =ithout +or; the found it difficult
to ;no+ ho+ their basic needs couldbe 2et. "he are li;el to be
fa2il 2en, horrified b the thou*ht that the could noteven provide
sufficientl for their oun* ones. It is precisel this situation that
2ust haveco2pelled the2 to surrender to 6I7"EC6 and see; financial
assistance.
Neither do +e subscribe to 6I7"EC6s ar*u2ent that petitioners
+ere hi*hl s;illed+or;ers, and that to abruptl ter2inate their
services +ould have a debilitatin* effect onthe co2pan. In this
countr, labor suppl far e9ceeds the de2and. Sooner or later,eBuall
s;illed +or;ers +ould be linin* up to fill the :ob vacancies.
6I7"EC6 apparentladopted a rather unsound business polic in
ter2inatin* petitioners e2plo2ent,preferrin* to bear the i22ediate
and inconseBuential losses in profit +hich, it hoped,+ould prove to
be te2porar and 2ini2al in the lon* run, as co2pared to the
lon*7ter2co2pan losses that +ould result if the co2plied +ith union
de2ands. #nfortunatel,the 2iscalculated its repercussions.
6I7"EC6 ne9t avers that it had e9pressed +illin*ness to
reinstate petitioners to theirfor2er positions in the co2pan, but
the latter ada2antl refused. Suffice it to sa thatsuch refusal is
understandable and should not be ta;en a*ainst petitioners.
%ieldin* tothe co2pan offer +ould deprive the2 of bac; +a*es to
+hich the are entitled thuseffectivel ne*atin* their cause.
=e conclude that petitioners did not abandon their :obs but +ere
ille*all dis2issedtherefro2 b private respondent. s a conseBuence,
the are entitled to reinstate2ent+ith full bac; +a*es, undi2inished
b earnin*s else+here, to be co2puted fro2 theirille*al dis2issal to
their actual reinstate2ent.0
On the second issue, the N!RC held that petitioners clai2s for
underpa2ent of+a*es, /th 2onth pa and service incentive leave pa
are +ithout basis.
=e disa*ree. First, petitioners e9ecuted aJOINT AFFIDAVIT
/-specifin* their dail+a*es, positions and periods of e2plo2ent,
+hich +as 2ade the basis of the !aborrbiters co2putation of the
2onetar a+ards. Second, all that the N!RC needed to do+as to refer
to the prevailin* 2ini2u2 +a*e to ascertain the correctness of
petitioners
3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt10
-
5/20/2018 274. Villar v. NLRC (2000)
4/4
clai2s. Third, and 2ost i2portantl, the burden of provin* pa2ent
of 2onetar clai2srests on the e2ploer. //In Jimenez v.National a!or
"elations #ommission /+e heldF
s a *eneral rule, one +ho pleads pa2ent has the burden of
provin*it. Even +here the plaintiff 2ust alle*e non7pa2ent, the
*eneral ruleis that the burden rests on the defendant to prove
pa2ent, ratherthan on the plaintiff to prove non7pa2ent. "he debtor
has the burdenof sho+in* +ith le*al certaint that the obli*ation
has beendischar*ed +ith pa2ent.
"he reason for the rule is that the pertinent personnel files,
parolls, records,re2ittances and other si2ilar docu2ents F +hich
+ill sho+ that overti2e, differentials,service incentive leave and
other clai2s of +or;ers have been paid F are not in thepossession
of the +or;er but in the custod and absolute control of the
e2ploer. "hus,in choosin* not to present evidence to prove that it
had paid all the 2onetar clai2s ofpetitioners, 6I7"EC6 failed once
a*ain to dischar*e the onus $ro!andi. ConseBuentl,+e have no choice
but to a+ard those clai2s to petitioners.
'inall, +e note that the hand+ritten letters and affidavits
e9ecuted b rturo Mani2ti2and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 parta;e of the
nature of Buitclai2s. Nevertheless, a deed ofrelease or Buitclai2
cannot bar e2ploees fro2 de2andin* benefits to +hich the arele*all
entitled, or stop the2 fro2 contestin* the le*alit of their
dis2issal. "heacceptance of these benefits does not a2ount to an
estoppel./6o+ever, it is but :ustthat the a2ounts received b rturo
and E9eBuiel Mani2ti2 as consideration for theBuitclai2s be
deducted fro2 their respective 2onetar a+ards.
=6ERE'ORE, the petition is $RN"ED. "he assailed Decision dated -
Ma /001and Resolution dated / 5ul /001 of the National !abor
Relations Co22ission areSE" SIDE, and the !abor rbiters Decision of
/A u*ust /00 is REINS""ED.Private respondent is directed to
reinstate petitioners to their for2er positions +ithout
loss of seniorit ri*hts and +ith full bac; +a*es, as +ell as to
pa their 2onetarbenefits in accordance +ith the co2putation 2ade b
!abor rbiter E2erson C."u2anon in his Decision of /A u*ust /00.
6o+ever, insofar as rturo Mani2ti2 andE9eBuiel Mani2ti2 are
concerned, this case is re2anded to the !abor rbiter forpurposes of
deter2inin* the a2ounts the received as consideration for their
Buitclai2sand thereafter deductin* these a2ounts fro2 their 2onetar
a+ards. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/may2000/gr_130935_2000.html#fnt
