Scribd
Upload
120 views2 pages

Wilgen Loon, Et. Al. vs. Power Master, Inc., Tri-C General Services and Sps. Alumisin

(1) The petitioners were employed as janitors by Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services and alleged they were not paid minimum wages and other benefits. They filed a case which the Labor Arbiter partially ruled in their favor but denied some claims. (2) Both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed some parts of the Labor Arbiter's ruling and allowed the respondents to submit new evidence. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to back wages and salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday, and 13th month pay. However, they failed to prove entitlement to overtime and premium pay. The case was remanded to the Labor

Uploaded by

Dennis Jay Dencio Paras
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views2 pages

Wilgen Loon, Et. Al. vs. Power Master, Inc., Tri-C General Services and Sps. Alumisin

(1) The petitioners were employed as janitors by Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services and alleged they were not paid minimum wages and other benefits. They filed a case which the Labor Arbiter partially ruled in their favor but denied some claims. (2) Both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed some parts of the Labor Arbiter's ruling and allowed the respondents to submit new evidence. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to back wages and salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday, and 13th month pay. However, they failed to prove entitlement to overtime and premium pay. The case was remanded to the Labor

Uploaded by

Dennis Jay Dencio Paras
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Wilgen Loon, et. al. vs. Power Master, Inc., Tri-C General Services and Sps.

Alumisin
G.R. 189404
December 11, 2013

Facts:

Herein petitioners (Loon et. al) were employed by herein respondents, Power Master, Inc. and
Tri-C General Services as janitors and leadmen for different Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT for brevity) offices within the Metro Manila area. They filed a complaint for
money claims against herein respondents for failure to pay them with minimum wages, overtime,
holiday, premium, service incentive leave (SIL) and thirteenth month pays. On June 21, 2001,
the petitioners averred that they were made to sign blank payroll sheets and were terminated in
retaliation for the filing of the original complaint. The respondents on the other hand had neither
filed any position paper nor presented any evidence on their defense.

The petitioners filed the case with the Labor Arbiter, which ruled in their favor on March 15,
2002, awarding them with the entitlement for salary differential, service incentive leave, and
thirteenth month pays, as well as attorney’s fees, pursuant to Article 11 of the Labor Code.
However, the LA denied their claims for backwages, overtime, holiday and premium pays, as it
was found out by the former that the petitioners had failed to present any proof that they
hadrendered overtime work and had worked on holidays and rest days. It was also concluded by
the LA that petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from their employment
because they did not show any notice of termination of employment.

Unsatisfied with the LA’s ruling, the petitioners appealed with the NLRC. In its decision, the
NLRC partially ruled in favor of the respondents. It allowed the respondents to submit pieces of
evidence for the first time on the ground that they had been deprived of their right to due process.
Meanwhile, the NLRC affirmed the awards of holiday pay and attorney’s fees to the petitioners.
On appeal in the CA, the latter affirmed the ruling of NLRC, and denied the motion for
reconsideration of petitioners. Hence, this appeal.

Issues:

(1) Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and are thus entitled to backwages
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential, overtime, holiday, premium,
service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays
Ruling:

(1) Yes. The petitioners are entitled to backwages. Based on the above considerations, we
reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding that the petitioners were terminated for just cause
and were afforded procedural due process. In termination cases, the burden of proving
just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the
employer. The employer’s failure to discharge this burden results in the finding that the
dismissal is unjustified. This is exactly what happened in the present case.

(2) Yes. The petitioners are entitled to salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday and
thirteenth month pays. We also reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding that the
petitioners are not entitled to salary differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth
month pays. As in illegal dismissal cases, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
defendant to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment of these
money claims. The rationale for this rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances and other similar documents – which will show that differentials,
service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – are not in the
possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer.

However, the CA was correct in its finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient
factual basis for the award of overtime, and premium pays for holidays and rest days. The
burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest
days rests on the employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of
business.43 In the present case, the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence that would
show that they actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a
day, and that they in fact worked on holidays and rest days.

Decision:

WHEREFORE, based on these premises, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated
June 5, 2009, and the resolution dated August 28, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 95182. This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the sole purpose of computing
petitioners' (Wilgen Loon, Jerry Arcilla, Albert Pereye, Arnold Pereye, Edgardo Obose, Arnel
Malaras, Patrocino Toetin, Evelyn Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol,
Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion, Ammndo Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido,
Evirdly Haque, Myrna Vinas, Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel Entig, Amel
Araneta, Benjamin Cose and William Alipao) full backwages (computed from the date of their
respective dismissals up to the finality of this decision) and their salary differential, service
incentive leave, holiday, thirteenth month pays, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent
(10%) of the withheld wages. The respondents are further directed to immediately post a
satisfactory bond conditioned on the satisfaction of the awards affirmed in this Decision.

You might also like