Etom v. Aroma Lodging House
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Edilberto P. Etom, Jr. (petitioner) against Aroma Lodging House (respondent) for illegal dismissal and money claims. The petitioner alleged that he was employed as a roomboy in 1997 and was dismissed on February 4, 2008, without being informed of any violation or given an opportunity to explain. Conversely, the respondent claimed the petitioner was employed in 2000 and, despite receiving wages above the minimum, holiday pay, 13th month pay, free meals, tips, and commissions, exhibited an adverse attitude. The respondent cited instances of the petitioner causing trouble, stealing from customers, facing a rape charge, and engaging in violent altercations with co-employees, including an attempt to stab a colleague with a knife. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially found the petitioner to have been legally dismissed but ordered the respondent to pay punitive damages for non-compliance with termination notice requirements, along with salary differential, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA's ruling but deleted the award of punitive damages, modifying the salary differential calculation. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the petitioner was not entitled to the awarded claims due to an affidavit admitting receipt of wages and benefits in accordance with law, and asserting exemption from the Minimum Wage Law due to having fewer than 10 employees. The petitioner countered that the respondent's motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was filed out of time. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted the respondent's Petition for Certiorari, reversing and setting aside the NLRC's decisions and awarding the petitioner unpaid wages, 13th month pay, and holiday pay. The CA found the respondent's motion for reconsideration to have been timely filed and concluded that the petitioner's notarized affidavit, stating he received wages above the minimum, precluded his claim of underpayment. The CA also found no factual basis for the 13th month pay and holiday pay. The petitioner, in his Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, assails the CA's findings regarding the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration, the evidentiary value of the affidavit, and the denial of his opportunity to file a reply and memorandum. He maintains he was underpaid and denied rightful benefits, and that his affidavit was coerced and not understood due to his illiteracy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent's motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the joint affidavit of petitioner and his co-employee as an admission against interest, despite documentary evidence and jurisprudence suggesting otherwise. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing petitioner to file a reply and other responsive pleadings to the Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated and affirmed the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court found that the CA erred in its findings regarding the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration, the evidentiary value of the affidavit, and the entitlement of the petitioner to monetary claims.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court found that the respondent's motion for reconsideration was timely filed. While the docket machine erroneously stamped the filing date as May 26, 2009, the respondent provided a credible explanation that May 23, 2009, was a Saturday, and the filing should have been on the next working day, May 25, 2009. The NLRC's acceptance and resolution of the motion on the merits further supported the conclusion that it was considered timely. The Court reiterated that the NLRC may liberally apply its rules to resolve labor cases on the merits, as demonstrated by its action in this case. On the evidentiary value of the joint affidavit: The Court held that the CA erred in giving conclusive weight to the joint affidavit of petitioner and his co-employee. While notarized documents are presumed regular, this presumption is not absolute and can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that petitioner was an unlettered employee who might not have fully understood the import of his statements in the affidavit. Furthermore, the affidavit did not specify the amounts received, merely stating they were "above the minimum wage." The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the employer to prove payment of wages and benefits, not on the employee to prove non-payment. Respondent's mere reliance on the affidavit was insufficient to discharge this burden, especially when the LA and NLRC found substantial evidence of underpayment. On the opportunity to file responsive pleadings: The Court found the petitioner's contention that he was denied the opportunity to file a reply and memorandum unmeritorious. The Court clarified that under Section 6 and 8 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the filing of subsequent pleadings and memoranda is subject to the sound discretion of the court. The CA, in the exercise of its judgment, could decide to resolve the case after the petition and comment were filed, without requiring further pleadings. Therefore, the CA did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in this regard.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the National Labor Relations Commission's award of salary differential, 13th month pay, and holiday pay to the petitioner, as the employer failed to present substantial evidence to prove payment of the required wages and benefits, and the petitioner's affidavit admitting receipt of wages above the minimum was not conclusive given his illiteracy and the circumstances of its execution.