Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 155034             May 22, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO BLANCAFLOR, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review¹ is the Decision² of the Court of Appeals³ in CA-G.R. SP No. 66449 deleting the award of salary differential and attorney’s fees to petitioner Virgilio Sapio, as well as the Resolution⁴ denying his motion for reconsideration.

The controversy started with a complaint filed by petitioner against Undaloc Construction and/or Engineer Cirilo Undaloc for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and nonpayment of statutory benefits. Respondent Undaloc Construction, a single proprietorship owned by Cirilo Undaloc, is engaged in road construction business in Cebu City.

Petitioner had been employed as watchman from 1 May 1995 to 30 May 1998 when he was terminated on the ground that the project he was assigned to was already finished, he being allegedly a project employee. Petitioner asserted he was a regular employee having been engaged to perform works which are "usually necessary or desirable" in respondents’ business. He claimed that from 1 May to 31 August 1995 and from 1 September to 31 December 1995, his daily wage rate was only P80.00 and P90.00, respectively, instead of P121.87 as mandated by Wage Order No. ROVII-03. From 1 March 1996 to 30 May 1998, his daily rate was P105.00. He further alleged that he was made to sign two payroll sheets, the first bearing the actual amount he received wherein his signature was affixed to the last column opposite his name, and the second containing only his name and signature. To buttress this allegation, petitioner presented the payroll sheet covering the period from 4 to 10 December 1995 in which the entries were written in pencil. He also averred that his salary from 18 to 30 May 1998 was withheld by respondents.⁵

For its part, respondent Cirilo Undaloc maintained that petitioner was hired as a project employee on 1 May 1995 and was assigned as watchman from one project to another until the termination of the project on 30 May 1998.⁶ Refuting the claim of underpayment, respondent presented the payroll sheets from 2 September to 8 December 1996, 26 May to 15 June 1997, and 12 January to 31 May 1998.⁷

On 12 July 1999, the Labor Arbiter⁸ rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which reads:

Respondents appealed the award of salary differential to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision¹⁰ dated 28 August 2000, the NLRC sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter.

Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which deleted the award of salary differential and attorney’s fees.

Thus, this petition for review.

Petitioner raises two grounds, one procedural and the other substantive. On the procedural aspect, petitioner contends that the appellate court erred in failing to dismiss respondent’s petition for certiorari brought before it on the ground that respondents failed to attach certified true copies of the NLRC’s decision and resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.¹¹

In his Comment on the Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining and/or Preliminary Injunction¹² filed with the Court of Appeals on 22 November 2001, petitioner did not raise this procedural issue. Neither did he do so when he moved for reconsideration of the 8 May 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals. It is only now before this Court that petitioner proffered the same. This belated submission spells doom for petitioner. More fundamentally, an examination of the Court of Appeals rollo belies petitioner as it confirms that the alleged missing documents were in fact attached to the petition. ¹³

That petitioner was a project employee became a non-issue beginning with the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Contested still is his entitlement to salary differential, apart from attorney’s fees.

Petitioner avers that he was paid a daily salary way below the minimum wage provided for by law.¹⁴ His claim of salary differential represents the difference between the daily wage he actually received and the statutory minimum wage, which he presented as follows:

To counter petitioner’s assertions, respondents submitted typewritten and signed payroll sheets from 2 September to 8 December 1996, from 26 May to 15 June 1997, and from 12 January to 31 May 1998.¹⁵ These payroll sheets clearly indicate that petitioner did receive a daily salary of P141.00.

In turn, petitioner presented the December 1995 payroll sheet written in pencil¹⁶ in tandem with the assertion that he, together with his co-employees, was required to sign two sets of payroll sheets in different colors: white, which bears the actual amount he received with his signature affixed in the last column opposite his name, and yellow, where only his name appears thereon with his signature also affixed in the last column opposite his name.¹⁷ In the December 1995 payroll sheet, petitioner appears to have received P90.00 only as his daily salary but he did not sign the same.

Banking on the fact that the December 1995 payroll sheet was written in pencil, the Labor Arbiter concluded that the entries were susceptible to change or erasure and that that susceptibility in turn rendered the other payroll sheets though typewritten less credible. Thus:

Thereupon, the Labor Arbiter proceeded to grant petitioner’s salary differential to the tune of P24,902.88.

The Court of Appeals did not subscribe to the common findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The appellate court pointed out that allegations of fraud in the preparation of payroll sheets must be substantiated by evidence and not by mere suspicions or conjectures, viz:

The conclusion of the Labor Arbiter that entries in the December 1995 payroll sheet could have been altered is utterly baseless. The claim that the December 1995 payroll sheet was written in pencil and was thus rendered it prone to alterations or erasures is clearly non sequitur. The same is true with respect to the typewritten payroll sheets. In fact, neither the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC found any alteration or erasure or traces thereat, whether on the pencil-written or typewritten payroll sheets. Indeed, the most minute examination will not reveal any tampering. Furthermore, if there is any adverse conclusion as regards the December 1995 payroll sheet, it must be confined only to it and cannot be applied to the typewritten payroll sheets.

Moreover, absent any evidence to the contrary, good faith must be presumed in this case. Entries in the payroll, being entries in the course of business, enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court. Hence, while as a general rule, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,²⁰ when fraud is alleged in the preparation of the payroll, the burden of evidence shifts to the employee and it is incumbent upon him to adduce clear and convincing evidence in support of his claim.²¹ Unfortunately, petitioner’s bare assertions of fraud do not suffice to overcome the disputable presumption of regularity.

While we adhere to the position of the appellate court that the "tendency" to alter the entries in the payrolls was not substantiated, we cannot however subscribe to the total deletion of the award of salary differential and attorney’s fees, as it so ruled.

The Labor Arbiter granted a salary differential of P24,902.88.²²

The Labor Arbiter erred in his computation. He fixed the daily wage rate actually received by petitioner at P105.00²³ without taking into consideration the P141.00 rate indicated in the typewritten payroll sheets submitted by respondents. Moreover, the Labor Arbiter misapplied the wage orders²⁴ when he wrongly categorized respondent as falling within the first category. Based on the stipulated number of employees and audited financial statements,²⁵ respondents should have been covered by the second category.

To avoid further delay in the disposition of this case which is not in consonance with the objective of speedy justice, we have to adjudge the rightful computation of the salary differential based on the applicable wage orders. After all, the supporting records are complete.

This Court finds that from 1 January to 30 August 1996 and 1 July 1997 to 31 May 1998, petitioner had received a wage less than the minimum mandated by law. Therefore, he is entitled to a salary differential. For the periods from 30 May to 31 December 1995 and 2 September 1996 to 30 June 1997, petitioner had received the correct wages. To illustrate:

The total salary differential that petitioner is lawfully entitled to amounts to P6,578.00 However, pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6727, as amended by R.A. No. 8188. Respondents are required to pay double the amount owed to petitioner, bringing their total liability to P13,156.00.

The award of attorney’s fees is warranted under the circumstances of this case. Under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, attorney's fees can be recovered in actions for the recovery of wages of laborers and actions for indemnity under employer's liability laws ³⁶ but shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded.³⁷ The fees may be deducted from the total amount due the winning party.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Petitioner is awarded the salary differential in the reduced amount of P13,156.00 and respondents are directed to pay the same, as well as ten percent (10%) of the award as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing,Chairperson Velasco, Jr., Leonardo- de Casto, Brion, JJ., concur.

Footnotes