Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT National Capital Region DOLE-NCR Building, 967 MaligayaStreet,, Malate, Manila Honorable Regional Director: ATTY. ALAN M. MACARAYA IN THE MATTER OF LABOR STANDARDS INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED AT: CASE NO. NCROO-PFO-1109-IS-003 MONDRAGON CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 48 L.A. Townhouse, Concepcion Street Buting, Pasig City MR. WILLIAM QUE President / General Manager x----------------------------------------------------------x MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RESPONDENTS, hereby files this Motion for Reconsideration from the 26 March 2012 Decision of the Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya of the Department of Labor and Employment, a copy of which was received on 17 April 2012 by Respondents and respectfully avers: THAT-- THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION The Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya of the Department of Labor and Employment promulgated a Decision on 26 March 2012, the decretal portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, MONDRAGON CONSTRUCTION CORP. and/or MR. WILLIAM QUE is/are ordered to pay PERFECTO BALGOS and two (2) other similarly situated employees, the aggregate amount of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P380,175.00) within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Failure to comply with this Order within the period prescribed shall cause the imposition of a penalty of double ATTY. .000. A Writ of Execution shall be issued upon finality of this Order. MACARAYA. “2” and “3”.indemnity pursuant to Republic Act No. THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC FAILED TO APPLY ART. II. 8188. WITH DUE RESPECT. SO ORDERED. ALAN M. 4 OF THE LABOR CODE.00) per month which is being paid to the complainants as forming part of their wages. The total non-cash benefits which is being paid to the complainants for the period of three (3) years amounting to One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos (P108.00) must be deducted from the salary differential of each of the complainants. otherwise known as “An Act Increasing the Penalty and Imposing Double Indemnity for Violation of the Prescribed Increase or Adjustment in the Wage Rates.000. ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS Complainants has been paid as part of their wages the facilities and benefits for lodging and electric power amounting to Three Thousand Pesos (P3. THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED THAT COMPLAINANT WAS RECEIVING A DAILY SALARY ABOVE THE MINIMUM WAGES BASED ON ALLEGATIONS AND UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS. AS AMENDED ON THE CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF LABOR CLAUSE. CEO III Regional Director “ THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS I. Copies of sworn statement of _________________________ are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “1”. Evidence without any rational probative value may not be made the basis of order or decision of administrative bodies. and a perusal and personal examination of the original payrolls and vouchers that respondents had in its possession should be undertaken by the Commission to exactly .00 since at the outset of his employment. unreliable.00. it was held in this case that computer print-outs afford no assurance of their authenticity because they are unsigned. 6. Inc. In IBM Philippines. NLRC. 5. 4. There is no record that complainant admits that he receive a daily allowance of P100. The alleged summary of compensation (Annex “1” appended in respondents’ Reply) is a mere computer print-outs and the same has been shown that it was not acknowledged by the complainant.is a grave error in judgment resulting to grave abuse of discretion in the since that its decision was based on MERE ALLEGATIONS and the unreliable summary of compensation marked as Annex “1” appended in respondents’ Reply. The said summary of compensation is a ploy of the respondents to cover up their failure to provide complainant’s daily minimum wage provided by law and existing wage order. Complainant vehemently denies that he receives a daily salary of P435. 2.00 as well as meal allowance of P35.00 as well as meal allowance of P35. The monetary claims enumerated by Complainant rightly belongs to him. Resultantly. Mere self-serving evidences of which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.00 the truth of the matter is that complainant receives only a daily salary of P300. the Supreme Court clarified that the liberality of procedure in administrative actions is not absolute and does not justify the total disregard of certain fundamental rules of evidence. complainant strongly contends that he did not receive a daily allowance of P100. 3. 7. vs. The burdened of proof that payment of complainant’s wages had been made rests upon the employer. [305 SCRA 592 (1999)]. hence. Likewise.00 since at the outset of his employment. 8. Unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated. only an HONEST and CLEAN ORIGINAL PAYROLLS/VOUCHERS that can prove payment for the three (3) years backward period of employment. Petitioner thus failed to discharge the onus probandi. the burden of proving payment of money claims rest on the employer. and other claims of workers have been paid are not in the position of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. 151849. Aside. 2005). Batomalaque. (Mayor vs. 453 SCRA 812.determine whether the 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. Mere allegations are not evidence. Bare allegations cannot be given any probative value for lack of Modicum of Admissibility. It is mandatory for the Respondents to show and present that the monetary benefits provided by law were indeed paid. Monetary claims employer has burden of proof. the rationally being that the pertinent personnel files. payroll or pay slip to support its payment. It must be remembered that bare allegations unsubstantiated by evidence. payrolls. 13. are not equivalent to proof under the Rules. This allegation is not evidence or proof unless substantiated by evidence.g. This has been declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Uichico vs. 11. are not equivalent to proof (Domingo vs. differential. petitioner did not present any evidence. It has been held that bare allegations.. records remittances and other similar documents which will show that overtime. 9. NLRC. June 23. from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz had fully paid respondent’s salaries. 2005. 273 SCRA 271. vs. however. Specifically with respect to labor cases. the well settled rule that a party who alleges payment as a defense has a burden of proving was again reiterated. e. wherein it held that: “xxx…While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law of equity are not controlling in proceedings before the NLRC. No. Belen. 430 SCRA 561. 567 [June 3.” . service incentive leave. 10. Inc. unsubstantiated by evidence. 12. G. March 18.R. 2004]). In G & M Phils. Robles. and other labor standard benefits have been paid. the evidence presented before it must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative. It is a settle rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master. 15. when there is a doubt between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.. Feb. 1997. 17.14. R. The rule enunciated in Article 4 of the Labor Code likewise applies in the appreciation of evidence in labor proceedings. These doubts should be resolved in favor of labor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. 2001. G. . Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. moral and factual framework whereby this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the First Division of the NLRC Decision. Oct. R. No. such doubt should be resolved in favor of the latter. vs. it is most respectfully prayed that the Decision dated 26 March 2012of the Honorable Regional Director Atty. Macaraya be reconsidered and set aside and a new one entered in favor of appellants.R. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee. 362 SCRA 56).R. should be resolved in the former’s favor. or in the interpretation of agreement and writings. 144786. 10. Alan M. 119523. PRAYER WHEREFORE. doubts reasonably arising from the evidence. No. Pasig City. NLRC. G. No. April 15. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the complainant was not dismissed by evidence that was self-serving. Paramio. 113162. Consequently. NLRC. v. dated 25 November 2011 that Complainant-Appellant pursue his case. the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of latter. afterthought and motivated by desire to grind an axe. All said. Inc. Inc. G.T. There are serious doubts in the allegations on record by the respondents as to factual basis of the payment of salaries and wages of the complainant. 280 SCRA 520. 23 April 2012. 2004 citing Asuncion v. July 31. 129329. Datu and Co. (Philippine Employ Services and Resources. L. 531. NLRC. No. premises considered. G. 253 SCRA 440. 1996. 16. this is the legal. 449). 9. (Citing Violeta v. 63. Pasig City Copy Furnished: MR. 21 Golden City. Et. Laguna EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. PERFECTO BALGOS. Town Homes. 11. Brgy. Rosa.A. Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served on the other party by registered mail with return card due to lack of available messengerial personnel to effect personal service or delivery. Dila Sta. Lot No.WILLIAM QUE Respondent for and on his own behalf Unit 48. Block No. Al. WILLIAM QUE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION . Concepcion Street Buting. L. 2. Filipino. identifying himself through a competent evidence of identifying and signing this document in my presence and affirming under oath the truthfulness of this document. Page No. Series of 2012.________. the Court of Appeals. after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law. or any other tribunal or agency. . Philippines. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court. Affiant appears in person and presents his Driver License No. of legal age. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court. or the different divisions thereof. No. 3.I. no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court.________. and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents.________. NOTARY PUBLIC Doc. WILLIAM QUE Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of April 2012. Done this 23rd day of April 2012. or the different divisions thereof. or any other tribunal or agency. at Pasig City. I undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof. do hereby depose and state: 1. To the best of my knowledge. in Pasig City. Book No. the Court of Appeals. the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. WILLIAM QUE. _________________. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration. That I am the respondent in the above-entitled case.
Report "Motion for Reconsideration DOLE NCR Mondragon Construction"