Sapio v. Undaloc Construction
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Virgilio Sapio filed a complaint against Undaloc Construction and/or Engineer Cirilo Undaloc for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of statutory benefits. Petitioner claimed he was a regular employee, not a project employee, and was paid wages below the statutory minimum wage. He alleged being made to sign two payroll sheets, one showing the actual amount received and another with only his name and signature, with the latter allegedly used for official records. He presented a payroll for December 4-10, 1995, written in pencil, as evidence. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found petitioner to be a project employee but ordered respondents to pay salary, 13th month pay, and salary differential. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sustained the Labor Arbiter's findings. The Court of Appeals deleted the award of salary differential and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising procedural and substantive issues, primarily concerning the entitlement to salary differential and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the petition for certiorari for failure to attach certified true copies of the NLRC's decision and resolution. Whether petitioner is entitled to salary differential. Whether petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Petitioner is awarded 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of failure to attach certified true copies: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's belated submission of this procedural issue, which was not raised before the Court of Appeals or in his motion for reconsideration, doomed his claim. Furthermore, an examination of the Court of Appeals' rollo confirmed that the alleged missing documents were indeed attached to the petition. Therefore, the procedural argument was dismissed. On the entitlement to salary differential: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that allegations of fraud in payroll preparation must be substantiated by evidence and not mere suspicions. The Court found the Labor Arbiter's conclusion that the pencil-written payroll indicated a tendency to alter entries to be unsubstantiated. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the total deletion of the award of salary differential. Upon recomputation, considering the applicable wage orders and the payroll sheets submitted by respondents, the Court found that petitioner received wages less than the minimum mandated by law for specific periods. The Court determined the total salary differential to be P6,578.00. Pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6727, as amended by Republic Act No. 8188, respondents were ordered to pay double the amount owed, totaling P13,156.00. On the entitlement to attorney's fees: The Supreme Court held that the award of attorney's fees is warranted under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, which allows recovery in actions for wages and indemnity under employer's liability laws. The fees were fixed at ten percent (10%) of the awarded amount and could be deducted from the total award.
Main Doctrine
While allegations of fraud in payroll preparation must be substantiated, the Supreme Court may recompute salary differentials based on applicable wage orders and impose double indemnity for unpaid benefits, even if the Court of Appeals deleted the award.