Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT National Capital Region DOLE-NCR Building, 967 Maligaya Street,, Malate, Manila Honorable Regional Director: ATTY. ALAN M. MACARAYA
IN THE MATTER OF LABOR STANDARDS INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED AT: CASE NO. NCROO-PFO-1109-IS-003 MONDRAGON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 48 L.A. Townhouse, Townhouse, Concepcion Street Buting, Pasig City MR. WILLIAM QUE President / General Manager x----------------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RESPONDENTS, hereby files this Motion for Reconsideration from the 26
March 2012 Decision of the Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya of the Department of Labor and Employment, a copy of which was received on 17 April 2012 by Respondents and respectfully avers: THAT--
THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION
The Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya of the Department of Labor and Employment promulgated a Decision on 26 March 2012, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, MONDRAGON CONSTRUCTION CORP. and/or MR. WILLIAM QUE is/are ordered to pay PERFECTO BALGOS and two (2) other similarly situated employees, the aggregate amount of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P380,175.00) within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Failure to comply with this Order within the period prescribed shall cause the imposition of a penalty of o f double
indemnity pursuant to Republic Act No. 8188, otherwise known as “An Act Increasing the Penalty and Imposing Double Indemnity for Violation of the Prescribed Increase or Adjustment in the Wage Rates. A Writ of Execution shall be issued upon finality of this Order.
SO ORDERED. ATTY. ALAN M. MACARAYA, CEO III Regional Director “
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED THAT COMPLAINANT WAS RECEIVING A DAILY SALARY ABOVE THE MINIMUM WAGES BASED ON ALLEGATIONS AND UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS. II. THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC FAILED TO APPLY ART. 4 OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED ON THE CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR CLAUSE. ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS
Complainants has been paid as part of their wages the facilities and benefits for lodging and electric power amounting to Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) per month which is being paid to the complainants as forming part of their wages. Copies of sworn statement of _________________________ are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “1”, “2” and “3”.
The total non-cash benefits which is being paid to the complainants for the period of three (3) years amounting to One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (P108,000.00) must be deducted from the salary differential of each of the complainants.
is a grave error in judgment resulting to grave abuse of discretion in the since that its decision was based on MERE ALLEGATIONS and the unreliable summary of compensation marked as Annex “1” appended in respondents’ Reply. 2.
Complainant vehemently denies that he receives a daily salary of P435.00
the truth of the matter is that complainant receives only a daily salary of P300.00 since at the outset of his employment. Likewise, complainant strongly contends that he did not receive a daily allowance of P100.00 as well as meal allowance of P35.00 since at the outset of his employment. 3.
There is no record that complainant admits that he receive a daily
allowance of P100.00 as well as meal allowance of P35.00. 4.
The alleged summary of compensation (Annex “1” appended in
respondents’ Reply) is a mere computer print-outs and the same has been shown that it was not acknowledged by the complainant. The said summary of compensation is a ploy of the respondents to cover up their failure to provide complainant’s daily minimum wage provided by law and existing wage order. 5.
Unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated, hence, unreliable.
Mere self-serving evidences of which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings. 6.
In IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, [305 SCRA 592 (1999)], the Supreme
Court clarified that the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is not absolute and does not justify the total disregard of certain fundamental rules of evidence. Evidence without any rational probative value may not be made the basis of order or decision of administrative bodies. Resultantly, it was held in this case that computer print-outs afford no assurance of their authenticity because they are
unsigned. 7.
The burdened of proof that payment of complainant’s wages had been
made rests upon the employer. 8.
The monetary claims enumerated by Complainant rightly belongs to him,
and a perusal and personal examination of the original payrolls and vouchers that respondents had in its possession should be undertaken by the Commission to exactly
determine whether the 13 th month pay and service incentive leave pay, and other labor standard benefits have been paid. 9.
It is mandatory for the Respondents to show and present that the
monetary benefits provided by law were indeed paid, only an HONEST and CLEAN ORIGINAL PAYROLLS/VOUCHERS that can prove payment for the three (3) years
backward period of employment. 10.
Monetary claims employer has burden of proof. In G & M Phils., Inc. vs.
Batomalaque, G.R. No. 151849, June 23, 2005, the well settled rule that a party who alleges payment as a defense has a burden of proving was again reiterated. Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of money claims rest on the employer, the rationally being that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records remittances and other similar documents which will show that overtime, differential, service incentive leave, and other claims of workers have been paid are not in the position of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Aside, however, from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz had fully paid respondent’s salaries, petitioner did not present any evidence, e.g. payroll or pay slip to support its payment. Petitioner thus failed to discharge theonus
probandi. 11.
It must be remembered that bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence,
are not equivalent to proof (Domingo vs. Robles, 453 SCRA 812, March 18, 2005). 12.
This allegation is not evidence or proof unless substantiated by evidence.
It has been held that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules. Mere allegations are not evidence. (Mayor vs. Belen, 430 SCRA 561, 567 [June 3, 2004]). 13.
Bare allegations cannot be given any probative value for lack of
Modicum of Admissibility. This has been declared by the Supreme Court in the case of
Uichico vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 271, wherein it held that: “xxx…While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law of equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative.”
14.
There are serious doubts in the allegations on record by the respondents
as to factual basis of the payment of salaries and wages of the complainant. These doubts should be resolved in favor of labor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the complainant was not dismissed by evidence that was self-serving, afterthought and motivated by desire to grind an axe. 15.
The rule enunciated in Article 4 of the Labor Code likewise applies in
the appreciation of evidence in labor proceedings. Consequently, when there is a doubt between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the latter. (Philippine Employ Services and
Resources, Inc. vs. Paramio, G. R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004 citing Asuncion v. NLRC, G. R. No. 129329, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 56).
16.
It is a settle rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master,
doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreement and writings, should be resolved in the former’s favor. (Citing Violeta v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 119523, Oct. 10, 1997, 280 SCRA 520, 531; L.T. Datu and Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113162, Feb. 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 440, 449).
17.
All said, this is the legal, moral and factual framework whereby this
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the First Division of the NLRC Decision, dated 25 November 2011 that Complainant-Appellant pursue his case.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Decision dated 26 March 2012of the Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya be reconsidered and set aside and a new one entered in favor of appellants. Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Pasig City, 23 April 2012.
WILLIAM QUE Respondent for and on his own behalf Unit 48, L.A. Town Homes, Concepcion Street Buting, Pasig City
Copy Furnished:
MR. PERFECTO BALGOS, Et. Al. Block No. 63, Lot No. 21 Golden City, Brgy. Dila Sta. Rosa, Laguna
EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served on the other party by registered mail with return card due to lack of available messengerial personnel to effect personal service or delivery.
WILLIAM QUE
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, WILLIAM QUE, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state: 1.
That I am the respondent in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents; 3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof. Done this 23rd day of April 2012, at Pasig City.
WILLIAM QUE Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of April 2012, in Pasig City, Philippines. Affiant appears in person and presents his Driver License No. _________________, identifying himself through a competent evidence of identifying and signing this document in my presence and affirming under oath the truthfulness of this document.
NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. No.________; Page No.________; Book No.________; Series of 2012.
