Documents

Dansart Security vs. Bagoy

Description
case digest
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  DANSART SECURITY FORCE & ALLIED SERVICES COMPANY and DANILO A.SARTE vs.  JEAN O. BAGOY G.R. No. 16! # J$% '( ')1)Fa*+s, Respondent Jean O. Bagoy was employed by Dansart Security Force andAllied Services Company to guard the establishments o its various clients.!owever rom April #$$$ until %ovember &''# respondent had allegedly beencaught sleeping on the (ob and incurred absences without leave or which he wasgiven notices o disciplinary action. Respondent )led with the Regional ArbitrationBranch a Complaint against petitioners or underpayment o salaries and non*payment o overtime pay holiday pay premium pay #+th month pay and serviceincentive leave pay. ,etitioners countered that it was respondent who abandonedher wor- beginning %ovember &''#. ,etitioners li-ewise presented several reportsissued by the %ational Capital Region Department o abor and /mployment0DO/1 stating that all mandatory wage increases and other related monetarybene)ts were complied with by petitioner security agency in rebuttal o respondent2s claim o non*payment o wages and bene)ts. 3he abor Arbiter issued a Decision avorable to respondent with regard toher money claims but did not rule on the issue o illegal dismissal as this was notincluded in her complaint. 3he oregoing Decision was appealed to the %RC whichheld that the DO/ reports stating that petitioner security agency had beencomplying with all mandatory wage increases and other monetary bene)ts shouldbe given proper respect. Respondent )led a petition or certiorari with the Court o Appeals under Rule 45 which held that the resolution o the %RC should beset aside and the abor Arbiter2s Decision be reinstated. Iss$-, 6hether the DO/ Certi)cations should be considered as su7cient proo thatpetitioners paid respondent proper wages and all other monetary bene)ts to whichshe was entitled as an employee. -%d, %o. 3he abor Arbiter as sustained by the CA ruled that the DO/ reports statingthat petitioners have not violated any provision o the abor Code nor is there anypending case with said government agency )led against the respondent and theOrder o the DO/ Regional Director dated January #8 &''# stating that petitionersecurity agency has complied with the payment o bac-wages or &8$ guards areinsu7cient to prove that petitioners have indeed paid respondent whatever is due  her. On the other hand the %RC considered the very same pieces o evidence assubstantial proo o payment. T/- Co$0+ /as 0--a+-d% 0$%-d +/a+ an do$2+ a03s3n4 50o +/- -va%$a+3ono5 -v3d-n*- as 2-+7--n +/- -%o-0 and +/- -%o-- $s+ 2- 0-so%v-d3n 5avo0 o5 +/- %a++-0 . Mo0-ov-0( 3+ 3s s-++%-d 8$03s0$d-n*- +/a+ +/- 2$0d-no5 0ov3n4 a-n+ o5 on-+a0 *%a3s 0-s+s on +/- -%o-0 . 3hus asreiterated in G & M Philippines, Inc. v. Cuambot, 507 SCRA 552 200! to wit9 : : :;one who pleads payment has the burden o proving it. 3he reason or the rule isthat the pertinent personnel )les payrolls records remittances and other similardocuments<which will show that overtime di=erentials service incentive leave and other claims o wor-ers have been paid<are not in the possession o the wor-erbut in the custody and absolute control o the employer. 3hus the burden o showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with paymentalls on the debtor in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment hasthe burden o proving it.> In +/3s *as-( -+3+3on-0s 5a3%-d +o d3s*/a04- s$*/ 2$0d-n o5 0oo5.  3heCerti)cations rom the DO/ stated that there are no pending labor cases againstpetitioners )led beore said o7ce but said certi)cations ;do not cover cases )ledbeore the %ational abor Relations Commission and the %ational Conciliation and?ediation Board.> @t was entirely within petitioners2 power to present suchemployment records that should necessarily be in their possession hence ailure topresent such evidence must be ta-en against them.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks