Pablico v. Cerro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Numeriano Cerro, Jr. was employed as a bartender at Master's Pab Resto Bar (MPRB). Upon the petitioner's purchase and takeover of MPRB's management on November 18, 2008, Cerro was promoted to Officer-in-Charge with a daily wage of P200.00 and was authorized to hire additional employees. Consequently, the other respondents were employed at MPRB in various capacities with daily wages ranging from P133.33 to P200.00. In September 2011, Cerro was transferred due to alleged infractions causing losses to MPRB. On October 18, 2011, the other respondents received text messages that they interpreted as their termination from employment due to their association with Cerro. Procedural History: On October 24, 2011, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and benefits, damages, and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit on March 30, 2012, finding Cerro's suspension valid and holding that the other respondents failed to prove their termination, with payrolls presented by the petitioner deemed sufficient proof of payment. The respondents appealed to the NLRC, which partially granted the appeal on November 21, 2012. The NLRC affirmed the legality of Cerro's suspension and the dismissal of the illegal dismissal claims but modified the decision regarding monetary claims, finding the respondents entitled to wage differentials and 13th-month pay for three years. The NLRC also directed reinstatement without backwages, but granted separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied. The petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition on October 27, 2015, but later modified its decision on September 19, 2016, affirming the NLRC's decision except for the award of separation pay, which was deleted. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul the CA's decision and amended decision. They argue that the NLRC committed reversible errors by ruling that the petitioner is not exempt from the Minimum Wage Law, by granting wage differentials without due regard to the evidence presented by the petitioner, and by arbitrarily computing the alleged liability of the petitioner. Specifically, the petitioner contends that his business, employing less than ten workers, should be exempt from the Minimum Wage Law and that he did not apply for exemption because he was unaware of the requirement. The petitioner also challenges the NLRC's findings regarding the number of employees and the computation of monetary benefits, asserting that payrolls presented as photocopies should have been considered sufficient proof of payment, especially after the dismissal of forgery allegations.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is exempt from the Minimum Wage Law. Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed. Whether the respondents are entitled to wage differentials and other monetary claims. Whether the photocopied payrolls presented by the petitioner are sufficient proof of payment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the CA's decision, modifying it to include interest on the wage differentials at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, and all monetary awards to earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality until fully paid. The Court found that petitioner failed to comply with the requirements for exemption from the Minimum Wage Law and that the photocopied payrolls were insufficient proof of payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the exemption from the Minimum Wage Law: The Court reiterated that to be exempted under Republic Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act), an establishment must not only regularly employ not more than ten (10) workers but must also apply for and be granted exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. The petitioner's admission that he did not apply for exemption renders him liable for wage differentials. The principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith was emphasized. The Court also noted that the labor tribunals found the petitioner to be employing more than ten (10) employees, and employment status is determined by the four-fold test, not by contract or affidavit. On the claim of illegal dismissal: The Court affirmed the findings of the labor tribunals and the CA that the respondents were not illegally dismissed. It reiterated the basic principle that employees must first establish the fact of their termination by competent and substantial evidence. The text messages presented by the respondents were deemed insufficient to prove termination, as their language did not remotely infer dismissal. The Court also noted that it was not shown that the respondents tried to report for work but were prevented from doing so, and that mere allegations of dismissal without overt acts are self-serving and conjectural. On the entitlement to wage differentials and monetary claims: The Court found that the petitioner's liability for wage differentials was established due to his failure to comply with the exemption requirements of R.A. No. 6727. The respondents were paid less than the prescribed minimum wage. The Court also affirmed the NLRC's award of wage differentials and 13th-month pay for three years, as the petitioner failed to present sufficient proof of payment. The Court clarified the interest rates applicable to the monetary awards, citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al. and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796. On the sufficiency of photocopied payrolls: The Court held that photocopied documents are generally admissible in administrative proceedings, but allegations of forgery necessitate the presentation of original documents for inspection. The dismissal of the forgery allegation by the City Prosecutor did not automatically validate the photocopies, as it was based on the respondents' failure to adduce evidence on how the forgery was committed. The petitioner's failure to present the original payrolls or explain their absence rendered the photocopies devoid of rational probative value, especially given the incomplete list of employees and lack of authenticity certification.
Main Doctrine
An employer seeking exemption from the Minimum Wage Law must not only show that the establishment regularly employs not more than ten (10) workers but must also apply for and be granted such exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Furthermore, photocopied documents, especially in cases of alleged forgery, are insufficient to prove payment without presentation of the originals or a valid explanation for their absence.