View full case

MANUEL B. PABLICO v. NUMERIANO B. CERRO

FACTS:

The petitioner, Manuel B. Pablico, purchased and took over the management of Master's Pab Resto Bar (MPRB) from its original owner. He promoted the respondent, Numeriano Cerro Jr., as Officer-in-Charge with a daily wage of P200.00. Cerro was given the authority to hire additional employees. Due to infractions that caused losses for MPRB, Cerro was transferred to another establishment. The other respondents received text messages that they interpreted as termination from their work. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and benefits, damages, and attorney's fees before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding Cerro's suspension as valid and the other respondents failed to prove they were terminated. The NLRC partially granted the appeal, affirming the legality of Cerro's suspension but awarding monetary claims to the respondents. The respondents filed a partial motion for reconsideration but was denied. The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed, but later amended affirming the NLRC's decision. The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner argues that he should be exempted from the application of the "Minimum Wage Law" as his business employs less than ten (10) employees. He faults the NLRC for not considering the "Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay" issued by the Guest Relations Officers/Waitresses as proof that they are not employees of the petitioner.

The labor tribunals and the CA ruled that Cerro's suspension is legal and that the rest of the respondents have not been dismissed. Cerro admitted to appropriating funds without the owner's knowledge, justifying his preventive suspension. The respondents failed to prove that they have been terminated. They also did not try reporting for work but were prevented from doing so.

The petitioner argues that the respondents are not entitled to wage differentials because his business employs less than ten (10) employees. According to the Wage Rationalization Act, in order to be exempted from the minimum wage, it must be shown that the establishment regularly employs not more than ten (10) workers and has been granted exemption by the Regional Board. The petitioner did not meet both requirements.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner is exempted from the Wage Rationalization Act.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner is employing more than ten employees.

  3. Whether the petitioner's documentary evidence, consisting of photocopies of payroll, is sufficient to prove that the respondents have been paid of the benefits they now claim

  4. Whether the award of monetary benefits in favor of the respondents is proper

  5. Whether or not strained relations between the parties should be proven as a fact and supported by substantial evidence in order to justify the denial of reinstatement in a case of illegal dismissal.

  6. Whether or not the NLRC's order for reinstatement is proper in the absence of any allegation or evidence to prove that reinstatement is impossible due to strained relations.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner is not exempted from the Wage Rationalization Act. In order to be exempted, the establishment must regularly employ not more than ten workers and must have applied for and was granted exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. In this case, the petitioner admitted that he did not apply for exemption, thus he cannot claim benefits under the law.

  2. The petitioner is employing more than ten employees. The labor tribunals found that the petitioner is employing more than ten employees based on the evidence presented. The Court affirms the finding, as it is supported by substantial evidence.

  3. The petitioner's documentary evidence is not sufficient to prove that the respondents have been paid of the benefits they now claim. While photocopies of documents are generally admitted and given probative value in administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication prompt the presentation of the original documents for inspection. In this case, the petitioner did not present the originals nor provided any explanation for their non-presentation. Moreover, the absence of certification as to their authenticity and the allegation of forgery by the respondents raise doubts on the authenticity of the payrolls, rendering them devoid of any rational probative value.

  4. The award of monetary benefits in favor of the respondents is proper. While it is generally the course of action to dismiss a complaint and direct the employee to return to work when there is no illegal dismissal or abandonment, separation pay may still be awarded in certain instances. These include closure of establishment, termination due to disease or sickness, dismissal for causes other than serious misconduct, unavailability of the dismissed employee's position, strained relations between the employer and employee, and the employee's preference not to be reinstated or if payment of separation benefits is for the best interest of the parties involved. In this case, none of these circumstances were present, and there was no allegation or evidence to support the preference for separation pay over reinstatement.

  5. Yes. Strained relations between the parties cannot be based on impression alone. It must be proven as a fact and supported by substantial evidence.

  6. The NLRC's order for reinstatement is proper as there was no allegation or evidence to prove that reinstatement is impossible due to strained relations between the parties.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The burden of proof lies on the person asserting the truth of the matter alleged.

  • Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance.

  • Employment status is not determined by contract or document, but by the four-fold test and relevant evidence.

  • Factual findings of labor officials are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence.

  • Failure to pay wage differentials constitutes a loan or forbearance of money and is subject to interest. The rate of interest is determined by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796, as amended.

Title: Rosa P. Santiago v. Miguel B. Posadas, Jacob R. Perriedo, Jocelyn L. Osea, et al.

  • Photocopies of documents are generally admitted and given probative value in administrative proceedings, but allegations of forgery and fabrication may prompt the presentation of the original documents for inspection.

  • The grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement presupposes that the employee was dismissed from employment, whether legally or illegally.

  • Separation pay may be awarded in instances such as closure of establishment, termination due to disease or sickness, dismissal for causes other than serious misconduct, unavailability of the dismissed employee's position, strained relations between the employer and employee, and the employee's preference not to be reinstated or if payment of separation benefits is for the best interest of the parties involved.

  • The doctrine of strained relations is an exception to the general rule of reinstatement, where separation pay is accepted as an alternative when reinstatement is no longer desirable or viable.

  • The denial of reinstatement based on strained relations between the parties must be proven as a fact and supported by substantial evidence.

  • The absence of any allegation or evidence to prove that reinstatement is impossible due to strained relations justifies the NLRC's order for reinstatement.