Arguments Jurisprudence

Burden of proof rests on the employer to Specifically, with respect to labor cases, the
substantiate that salary received by the burden of proving payment of monetary
Complainants is based on prevailing claims rests on the employer. The rationale
minimum wage for this is that the pertinent personnel files,
payrolls, records, remittances and other
similar documents — which will show that
overtime, differentials, service incentive
leave and other claims of workers have
been paid — are not in the possession of
the worker but in the custody and absolute
control of the employer.

Petitioners presented payrolls of

respondents while reiterating their argument
that the latter are receiving the basic
minimum wage as they are paid a
"premium" called "overtime pay" on top of
their basic salary which must be included in
the computation of their daily wage rate.

The CA ruled that respondents are entitled

to salary differentials. This is because the
amount termed as "overtime pay" in the
employees' payslips cannot be considered
as premium pay to support the allegation
that the employees are receiving the proper
minimum wage.

As for the 13th month pay, the CA agreed

with the NLRC in awarding the same to
respondents, since they were all receiving
salaries below minimum wage. Hence, the
basis for their 13th month pay was
erroneous.

As to overtime pay, holiday pay, and service

incentive leave pay, the CA ruled that since
respondents are regular employees of
petitioners, it follows that they are entitled to
said benefits.

[GR No. 244629, July 28, 2020, Marby

Food Ventures Corp, Mario Valderrama,
and Emelita Valderrama v. Roland Dela
Cruz et al]

By choosing not to fully and completely

disclose information and present the
necessary documents to prove payment of
labor standard benefits due to respondents,
 petitioners failed to discharge the burden of
proof. Indeed, petitioners’ failure to submit
the necessary documents which as
employers are in their possession, in spite
of orders to do so, gives rise to the
presumption that their presentation is
prejudicial to its cause.*

As aptly quoted by the CA: [W]hen the

evidence tends to prove a material fact
which imposes a liability on a party, and he
has it in his power to produce evidence
which from its very nature must overthrow
the case made against him if it is not
founded on fact, and he refuses to produce
such evidence, the presumption arises that
the evidence, if produced, would operate to
his prejudice, and support the case of his
adversary.**

*[G.R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998 (291

SCRA 348) National Semiconductor (HK)
Distribution, Ltd. v. National
Labor Relations Commission]

** [Metropolitan Bank and Trust

Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
122899, June 8, 2000 (333 SCRA 212,
219), citing Manila Bay Club Corp.
v. Court of Appeals, et al., 249 SCRA 303,
306 (1995)]

No substantial evidence of payment, mere Factual findings of administrative agencies

reliance on the submission of the are accorded respect and even finality in
complainants this Court if they are supported by
substantial evidence. xxx Specialized
agencies are presumed to have gained
expertise on matters within their respective
fields. Thus, their findings of fact, when
supported by substantial evidence, are
entitled to great respect and are generally
rendered conclusive upon this Court, except
only upon a clear showing of palpable error
or arbitrary disregard of evidence.

[GR No. 196936, July 02, 2014,

MONCHITO R. AMPELOQUIO, v. JAKA
DISTRIBUTION, INC.]
In another case, we upheld the NLRC's
ruling that the burden of proof rests on the
employer to show that it has not committed
any violation of labor standard laws, in
particular the full payment of the legally
mandated wages. If PHYVITA had truly paid
PANALIGAN, et al., their correct wages, it
had every opportunity to produce all
relevant payrolls and documents in the
proceedings below instead of merely
submitting incomplete documents relating to
February 2005 salaries, 13th month pay
and service incentive leave.

[GR. No. 202086, June 21, 2017,

NORMAN PANALIGAN, IRENEO
VILLAJIN, AND GABRIEL PENILLA v.
PHYVITA ENTERPRISES CORP.]

Actual findings of administrative bodies like

the NLRC are affirmed only if they are
supported by substantial evidence that is
manifest in the decision and on the records.
As stated in Castillo:

[A]buse of discretion does not necessarily

follow from a reversal by the NLRC of a
decision of a Labor Arbiter. Mere variance
in evidentiary assessment between the
NLRC and the Labor Arbiter does not
automatically call for a full review of the
facts by this Court. The NLRC’s decision,
so long as it is not bereft of substantial
support from the records, deserves respect
from this Court. As a rule, the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to review a decision or
resolution of respondent NLRC in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court does not include a correction of its
evaluation of the evidence but is confined to
issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, the NLRC’s factual
findings, if supported by substantial
evidence, are entitled to great respect and
even finality, unless petitioner is able to
show that it simply and arbitrarily
disregarded the evidence before it or had
misappreciated the evidence to such an
extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if
such evidence had been properly
appreciated.
 [G.R. No. 104319, June 17, 1999 (308
SCRA 326). Castillo v NLRC]

NLRC should have granted the motion and [t]he settled rule is that the NLRC is not
ordered the respondent to produce precluded from receiving evidence on
evidence to controvert the patent appeal as technical rules of evidence are
discrepancy in the payroll, the salary not binding in labor cases. In fact, labor
actually received by the complainant, and officials are mandated by the Labor Code to
the computation of salary rate for the actual use every and all reasonable means to
work hours rendered by the latter ascertain the facts in each case speedily
and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the
interest of due process. Thus, in Lawin
Security Services v. NLRC, ap.d Bristol
Laboratories Employees' Association-DFA
v. NLRC, we held that even if the evidence
was not submitted to the labor arbiter, the
fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to
the NLRC is enough basis for the latter to
be more judicious in admitting the same,
instead of falling back on the mere
technicality that said evidence can no
longer be considered on appeal. Certainly,
the first cause of action would be more
consistent with equity and the basic notions
of fairness.

[GR No. 206109, November 25, 2020,

Sps. Maynes v. Marivin Oreiro (Oreiro’s
Boutique and Merchandise]