10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

FIRSTDIVISION

G&MPHILIPPINES,INC.,G.R.No.162308
Petitioner,

Present:
PANGANIBAN,C.J.,Chairperson,
versusYNARESSANTIAGO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,SR.,and
CHICONAZARIO,JJ.

ROMILV.CUAMBOT,*Promulgated:
Respondent.
November22,2006
xx
DECISION

CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
[1]
[2]
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 64744, as well as the Resolution
datedFebruary20,2004denyingthemotionforreconsiderationthereof.
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:

OnNovember7,1994,respondentRomilV.CuambotappliedfordeploymenttoSaudiArabia
as a car body builder with petitioner G & M Philippines, Inc., a duly licensed placement and
recruitment agency. Respondents application was duly processed and he later signed a twoyear
employmentcontracttoworkattheAlWahaWorkshopinUnaizahCity,Gassim,KingdomofSaudi
Arabia.HeleftthecountryonJanuary5,1995.However,respondentdidnotfinishhiscontractand
returnedtothePhilippinesbarelysixmonthslater,onJuly24,1995.OnJuly26,1995,hefiledbefore
theNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)acomplaintforunpaidwages,withheldsalaries,
refundofplaneticketandrepatriationbond,lateramendedtoincludeillegaldismissal,claimforthe
unexpiredportionofhisemploymentcontract,actual,exemplaryandmoraldamages,andattorneys
fees.ThecomplaintwasdocketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.00070525295.

[3]
RespondentnarratedthathebeganworkingforMohdAlMotairi, thePresidentandGeneral
ManageroftheAlWahaWorkshop,onJanuary8,1995.AlongwithhisFilipinocoworkers,hewas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

1/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

subjectedtoinhumanandunbearableworkingconditions,towit:

1. [He] was required to work from 7:00 oclock in the morning to 10:00 oclock in the evening
everyday, except Friday, or six (6) hours overtime work daily from the usual eight (8) working
hoursperday.

2.[He]wasneverpaidxxxhismonthlybasicsalaryof1,200[Riyals]includinghisovertimepayfor
the six (6) hours overtime work he rendered every working day during his work in Saudi Arabia
exceptfortheamountof100[Riyals]giveneverymonthforhismealallowance

3.[He]wassubjectedtoseriousinsultbyrespondentMuthirieverytimeheaskedordemandedforhis
salaryand,

4. [S]omeofcomplainantslettersthatweresentbyhisfamilywerenotgivenbyrespondentMuthiri
[4]
and/orhisstaffxxx.

WhenrespondentaskedMotairiforhissalary,hewastoldthatsinceahugesumhadbeenpaid
totheagencyforhisrecruitmentanddeployment,hewouldonlybepaidafterthesaidamounthad
alreadybeenrecovered.Hewasalsotoldthathissalarywasonly800SaudiRiyals(SAR)permonth,
incontrasttotheSAR1200thatwaspromisedhimunderthecontract.Motairiwarnedthathewould
besenthomethenexttimehedemandedforhissalary.Duetohisfamilysincessantlettersaskingfor
financialsupport,however,respondentmusteredthecouragetoagaindemandforhissalariesduring
thesecondweekofJuly1996.Truetohisword,Motairiorderedhimtopackupandleave.Hewas
abletopurchasehisplaneticketonlythroughthecontributionsofhisfellowFilipinos.Motairieven
accompaniedhimtotheairportwhenheboughthisplaneticket.Inthemeantime,hiswifehadbeen
makinginquiriesabouthim.
[5]
Tocorroboratehisclaims,respondentsubmittedthefollowingdocuments:anundatedletter
[6]
he had written addressed to the Philippine Labor Attach in Riyadh, with Arabic translation his
[7]
wifes letter dated June 28, 1995 addressed to the Gulangco Monteverde Agency, Manila Head
[8]
Office,askingforafavortohelp[her]husbandtocomehomeasearlyaspossibleafaxmessage
datedJuly17,1995fromarepresentativeoftheLandBankofthePhilippines(LBP)toa
[9]
counterpartinRiyadh,askingforassistancetolocaterespondent andthe

[10]
reply
from the Riyadh LBP representative requesting for contact numbers to facilitate
communicationwithrespondent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

2/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

RespondentfurtherclaimedthathisemployersactuationsviolatedArticles83and103ofthe
LaborCode.WhilehewasentitledtoterminatehisemploymentinaccordancewithArticle285(b)
due to the treatment he received, he did not exercise this right. He was nevertheless illegally
dismissedbyhisemployerwhenhetriedtocollectthesalariesduehim.Respondentfurtherclaimed
thatthereductionofhismonthlysalaryfromSAR1,200toSAR800andpetitionersfailuretofurnish
himacopyoftheemploymentcontractbeforehisdepartureamountedtoprohibitedpracticesunder
Article34(i)and(k)oftheLaborCode.

Respondentprayedforthefollowingrelief:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,complainantmostrespectfullypraysuntothisHonorableOffice
thattheinstantcomplaintbegivenduecourseandthatadecisionberenderedinhisfavorandagainst
respondentsG&M(Phils.),Inc.,Alwaha(sic)Workshopand/orMuhamd(sic)Muthiri,asfollows:

(1) Ordering the respondents to pay, jointly and severally, complainant the unpaid
salaries and overtime pay in the amounts of P61,560.00 and P66,484.80,
respectively,includinginterests,untilthesamewillbefullypaid

(2)Orderingtherespondentstopay,jointlyandseverally,complainant[s]salaryforthe
unexpiredportionofthecontractintheamountofP184,680.00,includinginterests,
untilthesamewillbefullypaid

(3) Ordering the respondents to pay, jointly and severally, complainant[s] actual
expenseswhichheincurredinapplyingforthejob,includingexpensesinleaving
forthejob,includingexpensesinleavingforSaudiArabiaandplaneticket,aswell
asrepatriationbondandincidentalexpensesingoinghometothePhilippinesinthe
amountsofP49,000.00andP20,000.00, respectively, including interests, until the
samewillbefullypaid

(4)Orderingtherespondentstopay,jointlyandseverally,complainantmoraldamages
in the amount of P150,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of
P150,000.00,includinginterests,untilthesamewillbefullypaid

(5) Ordering the respondents to pay, jointly and severally, complainant for and as
attorneysfeesintheamountofP68,172.48ortheamountequivalentto10%ofthe
total amount of the foregoing claims and damages that may be awarded by the
[11]
HonorableOfficetothecomplainant.

Initspositionpaper,petitionerallegedthatrespondentwasdeployedforoverseasworkascar
body builder for its Principal Golden Wings Est. for General Services and Recruitment in Saudi
[12]
Arabiaforanemploymentperiodof24months,withamonthlysalaryofUS$400.00.
Itinsisted
thatrespondentwasreligiouslypaidhissalariesastheyfelldue.Afterworkingforalittleoverseven
months,respondentpleadedwithhisemployertobeallowedtoreturnhomesincetherewerefamily
[13]
problemshehadtosettlepersonally.Respondentevensubmittedaresignationletter
dated July
23,1995.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

3/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

To support its claim that respondent had been paid his salaries as they fell due, petitioner
[14]
submitted in evidence copies of seven payslip
authenticated by the Philippine Labor Attach in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Petitioner asserted that since respondent only worked for a little over seven
monthsanddidnotfinishhiscontract,heshouldpaythecostoftheplaneticket.Itpointedoutthat
accordingtothestandardemploymentcontract,theemployerwouldprovidetheemployeewithafree
planeticketfortheflighthomeonlyiftheworkerfinisheshiscontract.

Respondent countered that his signatures in the purported payslips were forged. He denied
havingreceivedhissalariesforthesaidperiod,exceptonlyfortheSAR100asmonthlyallowance.
Hepointedoutthattheauthenticationoftheallegedpayslipsandresignationletterbeforethelabor
attachinRiyadhisimmaterial,sincethedocumentsthemselveswerefalsified.

RespondentfurtherclaimedthatpetitionerrequiredhimtopayaP10,000.00placementfeeand
that he had to borrow P2,000.00 from a relative. He was then told that the amount would be
consideredasanadvancepaymentandthatthebalancewouldbedeductedfromhissalary.Hewas
not,however,givenanyreceipt.Heinsistedthattheemploymentcontractwhichhesignedindicated
that he was supposed to receive a monthly salary of SAR1,200 for working eight hours a day,
excludingovertimepay.Hewasrepeatedlypromisedtobefurnishedacopyofthecontractandwas
latertoldthatitwouldbegiventohiswife,Minda.However,shewasalsogiventherunaroundand
wastoldthatthecontracthadalreadybeengiventoherhusband.

To counter the allegation of forgery, petitioner claimed that there was a great possibility that
respondent had changed his signature while abroad so that he could file a complaint for illegal
dismissaluponhisreturn.Theargumentthatthestrokeandhandwritingonthepayslipwaswrittenby
one and the same person is mere conjecture, as respondent could have requested someone, i.e., the
cashier,topreparetheresignationletterforhim.Whileitistheemployerwhofillsupthepayslip,
respondent could have asked another employee to prepare the resignation letter, particularly if he
(respondent) did not know how to phrase it himself. Moreover, it could not be presumed that the
payslip and resignation letter were prepared by one and the same person, as respondent is not a
handwritingexpert.Petitionerfurtherpointedoutthatrespondenthasdifferentsignatures,notonlyin
thepleadingssubmittedbeforetheLaborArbiter,butalsoinrespondentspersonaldocuments.
OnJanuary30,1997,LaborArbiterJoseDeVeraruledinfavorofrespondentonthefollowing
ratiocination:

WhatconvincedthisArbitrationBranchabouttheunreliabilityofthecomplainantssignaturein
the payslip is the close semblance of the handwritings in the payslips and the handwritings in the
purported handwritten resignation of the complainant. It unmistakably appears to this Arbitration
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

4/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

Branchthatthepayslipsaswellasthehandwrittenletterresignationwerepreparedbyoneandthesame
person. If it were true that the handwritten letterresignation was prepared by the complainant, it
followsthathealsopreparedthepayslipsbecausethehandwritingsinbothdocumentsareexactlythe
sameandidentical.But[this]isquiteunbelievablethatcomplainanthimselfasthepayeepreparedthe
payslips with the corresponding entries therein in his own handwriting. Under the circumstances, the
only logical conclusion is that both the payslips and the handwritten letterresignation were prepared
andsignedbyoneandthesamepersondefinitelynotthecomplainant.

Withtheforegoingfindingsandconclusions,thisArbitrationBranchisofthewellconsidered
viewthatcomplainantwasnotpaidhissalariesfromJanuary5,1995uptoJuly23,1995 and that he
wasunjustifiablydismissedfromhisemploymentwhenherepeatedlydemandedforhisunpaidsalaries.
Respondentsare,therefore,liabletopaythecomplainanthissalariesfromJanuary5,1995uptoJuly
23,1995whichamounttoUS$2,640.00(US$400x6.6mos).Further,respondentsarealsoliabletothe
complainantforthelatterssalariesfortheunexpiredportionofhiscontractuptothemaximumofthree
(3)monthspursuanttoSection10ofRA8042,whichamounttoUS$1,200.00.Respondentsmustalso
refundcomplainantsplanefareforhisreturnflight.Andfinally,beingcompelledtolitigatehisclaims,
itisbutjustandxxxthatcomplainantmustbeawardedattorneysfeesattherateoftenpercent(10%)
ofthejudgmentaward.

WHEREFORE,alltheforegoingpremisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedorderingthe
respondents to pay complainant the aggregate sum of US$3,840.00 or its equivalent in Philippine
Currencyattheexchangerateprevailingatthetimeofpayment,andtorefundcomplainantsplanefare
for his return flight. Further, respondents are ordered to pay complainant attorneys fees at the rate of
[15]
Tenpercent(10%)oftheforegoingjudgmentaward.

Petitioner appealed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, alleging that the Labor
Arbiter, not being a handwriting expert, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
[16]
jurisdictioninfindingforrespondent.InitsDecision
datedDecember9,1997,theNLRCupheld
this contention and remanded the case to the Arbitration Branch of origin for referral to the
[17]
governmentagencyconcernedforcalligraphyexaminationofthequestioneddocuments.

ThecasewasthenreraffledtoLaborArbiterEnricoAngeloPortillo.OnSeptember11,1998,
thepartiesagreedtoaresettingtoenablepetitionertosecuretheoriginalcopiesofdocumentsfrom
its foreign principal. However, on December 9, 1998, the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolutionbasedonthepleadingsandontheevidenceonrecord.

Thistime,thecomplaintwasdismissedforlackofmerit.AccordingtoLaborArbiterPortillo,
asidefromrespondentsbareallegations,hefailedtosubstantiatehisclaimofpoorworkingconditions
andlonghoursofemployment.Thefactthatheexecutedahandwrittenresignationletterisenough
evidence of the fact that he voluntarily resigned from work. Moreover, respondent failed to submit
anyevidencetorefutethepayslipsdulysignedandauthenticatedbythelaborattachinSaudiArabia,
inasmuch as their probative value cannot be impugned by mere selfserving allegations. The Labor

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

5/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

Arbiterconcludedthatasbetweentheoralallegationsofworkersthattheywerenotpaidmonetary
[18]
benefitsandthedocumentaryevidencepresentedbyemployer,thelattershouldprevail.

RespondentappealedthedecisionbeforetheNLRC,allegingthattheLaborArbiterfailedto
considerthegenuinenessofthesignaturewhichappearsinthepurportedresignationletterdatedJuly
23,1995,aswellasthosethatappearinthesevenpayslips.Heinsistedthatthesedocumentsshould
havebeenendorsedtotheNationalBureauofInvestigationQuestionedDocumentsDivisionorthe
PhilippineNationalPoliceCrimeLaboratoryforcalligraphyexamination.

[19]
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit in a Resolution
dated December 27,
2000. It held that the questioned documents could not be endorsed to the agency concerned since
mere photocopies had been submitted in evidence. The records also revealed that petitioner had
communicated to the foreign employer abroad, who sent the original copies, but there was no
response from respondent. It also stressed that during the December 9, 1998 hearing, the parties
agreedtosubmitthecaseforresolutiononthebasisofthepleadingsandtheevidenceonrecordif
respondent had wanted to have the documents endorsed to the NBI or the PNP, he should have
insisted that the documents be examined by a handwriting expert of the government. Thus,
respondentwasestoppedfromassailingtheLaborArbitersruling.

Unsatisfied,respondentelevatedthemattertotheCAviapetitionforcertiorari.Hepointedout
thathemerelyaccededtothesubmissionofthecaseforresolutionduetotheinordinatedelaysinthe
case.Moreover,thequestioneddocumentswerewithinpetitionerscontrol,anditwaspetitionerthat
repeatedlyfailedtoproducetheoriginalcopies.

The CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC. According to the appellate court, a visual
examination of the questioned signatures would instantly reveal significant differences in the
handwritingmovement,stroke,andstructure,aswellasthequalityoflinesofthesignaturesLabor
Arbiter Portillo committed patent error in examining the signatures, and it is the decision of Labor
Arbiter De Vera which must be upheld. The CA also pointed out the initial ruling of the NLRC
(SecondDivision)datedDecember9,1997whichsetasidetheearlierdecisionofLaborArbiterDe
Vera included a special directive to the Arbitration Branch of origin to endorse the questioned
documents for calligraphy examination. However, respondent Cuambot failed to produce original
copiesofthedocumentshence,LaborArbiterPortilloproceededwiththecaseandruledinfavorof
petitionerG.M.Phils.ThedispositiveportionoftheCArulingreads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly,theassailedResolutionsdated27December2000and12February2001,respectively,of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

6/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

theNLRCSecondDivisionareherebySETASIDEandtheDecisiondated20February1997rendered
[20]
byLaborArbiterJoseDeVeraisherebyREINSTATED.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied for lack of merit in its
[21]
Resolution
datedFebruary20,2004.

Hence,thepresentpetition,wherepetitionerclaimsthat

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT

LABOR ARBITER ENRICO PORTILLO GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE
HELD THAT THE SIGNATURES APPEARING ON THE QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS ARE
[22]
THOSEOFTHEPETITIONER.

PetitionerpointsoutthatmostofthesignatureswhichLaborArbiterDeVerausedasstandardsfor
comparisonwiththesignaturesappearingonthequestioneddocumentswerethoseinthepleadings
filedbytherespondentlongafterthequestioneddocumentshadbeensupposedlysignedbyhim.It
claims that respondent affixed his signatures on the pleadings in question and intentionally made
themdifferentfromhistruesignaturesothathecouldlateronconvenientlyimpugntheirauthenticity.
PetitionerclaimsthathadLaborArbiterDeVeratakenpainsinconsideringthesecircumstances,he
could have determined that respondent may have actually intentionally given a different name and
slightlychangedhissignatureinhisapplication,whichnameandsignatureheusedwhenhesigned
thequestionedletterofresignationandpayslips,onlytoconvenientlydisownthesamewhenhecame
[23]
back to the country to file the present case.
Thus, according to petitioner, the CA clearly
committedapalpableerroroflawwhenitreversedtherulingoftheNLRC,whichinturnaffirmed
LaborArbiterPortillosdecision.

Forhispart,respondentcontendsthatpetitionersargumentswerealreadyraisedinthepleadingsfiled
before LaborArbiter De Vera which had already been passed upon squarely in the LaborArbiters
DecisionofJanuary30,1997.

Thedeterminativeissuesinthiscaseareessentiallyfactualinnature(a)whetherthesignaturesof
respondent in the payslips are mere forgeries, and (b) whether respondent executed the resignation
letter.Generally,itisnotourfunctiontoreviewfindingsoffact.However,incaseofadivergencein
thefindingsandconclusionsoftheNLRContheonehand,andthoseoftheLaborArbiterandthe
CAontheother,theCourtmayexaminetheevidencepresentedbythepartiestodeterminewhether

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

7/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

[24]
or not the employee was illegally dismissed or voluntarily resigned from employment.
The
instantcasethusfallswithintheexception.

Wehavecarefullyexaminedtheevidenceonrecordandfindthatthepetitionmustfail.

[25]
InitsDecision
datedDecember9,1997,theNLRChadorderedthecaseremandedtothe
LaborArbiterpreciselysothatthequestioneddocumentspurportedlysigned/executedbyrespondent
couldbesubjectedtocalligraphyexaminationbyexperts.Itispreciselywhereajudgmentorruling
fails to make findings of fact that the case may be remanded to the lower tribunal to enable it to
[26]
determinethem.
However,insteadofreferringthequestioneddocumentstotheNBIorthePNP
as mandated by the Commissions ruling, Labor Arbiter Portillo proceeded to rule in favor of
petitioner, concluding that respondents signatures were not forged, and as such, respondents
separationfromemploymentwaspurelyvoluntary.Infine,then,theLaborArbitergravelyabusedhis
discretionwhenheruledinfavorofpetitionerwithoutabidingbytheCommissionsdirective.

Wenote,however,thataremandofthecaseatthisjuncturewouldonlyresultinunnecessary
delay,especiallyconsideringthatthiscasehasbeenpendingsince1995.Indeed,itisthisCourtsduty
tosettle,wheneverpossible,theentirecontroversyinasingleproceeding,leavingnorootorbranch
[27]
tobeartheseedsoffuturelitigation.
Hence,thecaseshallbefullyresolvedonitsmerits.

Wefindthatpetitionersfailuretosubmittheoriginalcopiesofthepayslipsandtheresignation
letterraisesdoubtsastotheveracityofitsclaimthattheywereactuallysigned/pennedbyrespondent.
Thefailureofapartytoproducetheoriginalcopyofthedocumentwhichisinissuehasbeentaken
againstsuchparty,andhasevenbeenconsideredasamerebargainingchip,adilatorytacticsothat
[28]
suchpartywouldbegrantedtheopportunitytoadducecontrovertingevidence.
Infact,petitioner
didnotevenpresentinevidencetheoriginalcopyoftheemploymentcontract,muchlessamachine
copy, giving credence to respondents claim that he was not at all given a copy of the employment
contract after he signed it. What petitioner presented was a mere photocopy of the OCW Info
[29]
Sheet
issuedbythePhilippineOverseasEmploymentAdministrationaswellasthePersonalData
[30]
Sheet
which respondent filled up. It bears stressing that the original copies of all these
documents, including the employment contract, were in the possession of petitioner, or, at the very
least,petitionersprincipal.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

8/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

Moreover,ascorrectlynotedbytheCA,theopinionsofhandwritingexperts,althoughhelpful
intheexaminationofforgeddocumentsbecauseofthetechnicalprocedureinvolvedintheanalysis,
[31]
arenotbindinguponthecourts.
Assuch,resorttotheseexpertsisnotmandatoryorindispensable
totheexaminationorthecomparisonofhandwriting.Afindingofforgerydoesnotdependentirely
on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
[32]
authenticity.
No less than Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the
court,byitself,tomakeacomparisonofthedisputedhandwritingwithwritingsadmittedortreatedas
genuinebythepartyagainstwhomtheevidenceisofferedorprovedtobegenuinetothesatisfaction
ofthejudge.Indeed,theauthenticityofsignaturesisnotahighlytechnicalissueinthesamesense
thatquestionsconcerning,e.g.,quantumphysicsortopology,ormolecularbiology,wouldconstitute
matters of a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a
questionedsignatureiscertainlymuchlesscompellinguponajudgethananopinionrenderedbya
[33]
specialistonahighlytechnicalissue.

[34]
Evenacursoryperusaloftheresignationletter
andthehandwrittenpayslipswillreadily
show that they were written by only one person. A mere layman will immediately notice that the
strokesandlettersinthedocumentsareverysimilar,ifnotidentical,tooneanother.Itisalsoquite
apparentfromacomparisonofthesignaturesinthepayslipsthattheyareinconsistent,irregular,with
unevenandfalteringstrokes.

WealsofinditunbelievablethatafterhavingwaitedforsolongtobedeployedtoSaudiArabia
and with the hopes of opportunity to earn a better living within his reach, respondent would just
suddenly decide to abandon his work and go home due to family problems. At the very least,
respondent could have at least specified the reason or elaborated on the details of such an urgent
mattersoasnottojeopardizefutureemploymentopportunities.

Thatrespondentalsofiledthecomplaintimmediatelygivesmorecredencetohisclaimthathewas
illegally dismissed. He arrived in the Philippines on July 24, 1995, and immediately filed his
complaintforillegaldismissaltwodayslater,onJuly26,1995.

Wearenotimperviousofpetitionersclaimthatrespondentcouldhaveaskedanotherpersonto
executetheresignationletterforhim.However,petitionerfailedtopresentevenanaffidavitfroma
representativeofitsforeignprincipalinordertosupportthisallegation.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

9/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

Indeed, the rule is that all doubts in the implementation and the interpretation of the Labor
[35]
Codeshallberesolvedinfavoroflabor,
inordertogiveeffecttothepolicyoftheStatetoafford
protectiontolabor,promotefullemployment,ensureequalworkopportunitiesregardlessofsex,race
or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers, and to assure the rights of
workerstoselforganization,collectivebargaining,securityoftenure,andjustandhumaneconditions
[36]
of work.
We reiterate the following pronouncement in Nicario v. National Labor Relations
[37]
Commission:

It is a wellsettled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the
employerandtheemployee,thescalesofjusticemustbetiltedinfavorofthelatter.Itisatime
honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising
fromtheevidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing shouldberesolvedinthe
formers favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can
availofthebenefitsunderthelaw,whichisinconsonancewiththeavowedpolicyoftheStateto
givemaximumaidandprotectionoflabor.

Moreover,onewhopleadspaymenthastheburdenofprovingit.Thereasonfortheruleisthat
the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents which will
showthatovertime,differentials,serviceincentiveleave,andotherclaimsofworkershavebeenpaid
arenotinthepossessionoftheworkerbutinthecustodyandabsolutecontroloftheemployer.Thus,
theburdenofshowingwithlegalcertaintythattheobligationhasbeendischargedwithpaymentfalls
onthedebtor,inaccordancewiththerulethatonewhopleadspaymenthastheburdenofprovingit.
[38]
Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been extinguished does the
burdenshifttothecreditor,whoisthenunderadutyofproducingevidencetoshowwhypayment
[39]

doesnotextinguishtheobligation.

Inthiscase,petitionerwasunabletopresentampleevidenceto

proveitsclaimthatrespondenthadreceivedallhissalariesandbenefitsinfull.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 64744 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the
petitioners.

SOORDERED.

ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

10/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

ChiefJustice
Chairperson

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOMA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

*RespondentisalsoreferredtointherecordsasRommelV.Cuambot,RamilB.Cuambot,andRomelB.Cuambot.Inthecomplaint,the
positionpaperandthepleadingsbeforetheCAandthisCourt,however,respondentsignsasRomilV.Cuambot.Heisalsoreferredtoinhis
birthcertificateasRomilVillaceranCuambot(records,p.184).
[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.(nowretired),withAssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandArturoD.Brion
concurringrollo,pp.1926.
[2]
Rollo,p.28.
[3]
AlsoreferredtointherecordsasMohamadMuthiri,MuhamadMuthiriandMohdMuthiri.Itappears,however,thatthecorrectspellingis
MohdAlMotairi,asthisiswhatappearsinthepayslipsissuedtorespondent.
[4]
Records,pp.6667.
[5]
Id.at108.
[6]
Id.at109.
[7]
Id.at110.
[8]
Id.at111.
[9]
Theletterreads:
PleaserequestLabattFilomenoBalbin&/orOWWAofficersinRiyadhtolocateMR.ROMMELCUAMBOTwithaddressPOBox
16177UnaisahCity81888AlWahaWorkshopSinayaSt.,AlGassim,K.S.A.
Mr.Cuambot,whoisarelativeofaLandbankOCBDstaff,wantstoberepatriatedimmediatelybecauseofcontractsubstitutionand
nonpaymentofsalarysincehisdeploymentinKSAinJanuary1995.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

11/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

Althoughhisfamilywriteshimregularlyattheaboveaddress,Mr.Cuambothasnotreceivedmostoftheletters.Hetoldhisfamilyto
usethemailingaddressofafriendPOBox90,UnaisahCityK.S.A.Mr.CuambotsfamilyisreallyworriedandMr.Cuambothimself
wantstogohomeevenifhecannotcollecthissalary.
Thanks.
xxx
[10]
Thepertinentportionofthemessagereads:
Further,pleasebeinformedthatperfaxedmessageofMr.JamesFiguerasdated17July1995re:Mr.RommelC.QuiambotwithaddressatPO
Box16177UnaizahCity,Sinaya,AlGassim,KSA,thematterhasbeenendorsedtotheOfficeoftheLaborAttachwithMr.SalehMoneras
inchargeofthecase.
However,duetosomeconstraintsliketheplacebeingabout400kms.fromRiyadhcityproperandthelackofcontacttelephonenumber,the
case cannot be immediately resolved since they will be relying at the mercy of the employer via mail which is very uncertain.
DOLE/OWWAisthereforerequestingtherelativesiftheycouldprovideotherinformationliketelephonenumberoffriendsmentionedon
POBox90,alsoinUnaizahwhichwillleadtoimmediatecontactandnegotiationwiththeemployerandcommunicationwiththeOCW.
DOLE/OWWAwillbewaitingreply(records,p.112).
[11]
Records,pp.7577.
[12]
Id.at9.
[13]
Id.at21.InJanuary8,1995,theUSdollarSaudiRiyalexchangeratewas1USD=SAR3.75080(http//www.oanda.com/convert/classic,
visitedOctober11,2006).
[14]
Rollo,pp.4344.
[15]
Records,pp.197198.
[16]
Id.at318323.
[17]
Id.at322.
[18]
Id.at381382.
[19]
Rollo,pp.6671.
[20]
Id.at2526.
[21]
Id.at28.
[22]
Id.at11.
[23]
Id.at13.
[24]
SeeGutierrezv.SingerSewingMachineCompany,458Phil.401,409(2003).
[25]
ThedispositiveportionoftheResolutionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisionisSetAside.TheentirerecordsoftheinstantcaseisremandedtotheArbitration
BranchofOriginforendorsementtotheproperagency(ies)concern[ed]forcaligraphy(sic)examinationofthequestioneddocuments(rollo,
p.52).
[26]
Miguelv.JCTGroup,Inc.,G.R.No.157752,March16,2005,453SCRA529,542.
[27]
CaurdanetaanPieceWorkersUnionv.Laguesma,350Phil.35,71(1998).
[28]
SeeMagdayaov.People,G.R.No.152881,August17,2004,436SCRA677,687.
[29]
Records,p.87.
[30]
Rollo,p.72.
[31]
Jimenezv.CommissiononEcumenicalMissionandRelationsoftheUnitedPresbyterianChurchintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,432
Phil.895,907(2002).
[32]
Id.
[33]
Bautistav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.158015,August11,2004,436SCRA141,146.
[34]
Thefulltextoftheresignationletterreads:
MR.MOHDALMOTAIRI
ALWAHAWORKSHOP
UNAIZAHCITY,GASSIM,KSA

SIR,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

12/13

10/2/2016

G.R.No.162308

IAMROMMELV.CUAMBOT,AFILIPINO,WOULDLIKETORESIGNFROMMYEMPLOYMENTANDHEREBYWAIVEDAND
QUITCLAIMALLMYCLAIMSAGAINSTMYEMPLOYER&THEAGENCYW/CDEPLOYME.

IJUSTRECEIVEDBADNEWSFROMTHEPHILS.SAYINGTHATISHOULDGOHOMEDUETOFAMILYPROBLEMSW/CNEED
TOBESOLVEDBYMYSELFW/CURGEDMETOGOHOME.

HOPEYOUUNDERSTANDMYSITUATION.

RESPECTFULLYYOURS,
(Sgd.)
ROMMELV.CUAMBOT
WORKER(records,p.21)
[35]
LABORCODE,Art.4.
[36]
LABORCODE,Art.3.
[37]
G.R.No.125340,September17,1998,295SCRA619,626627.
[38]
Villarv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,387Phil.706,716(2000).
[39]
G&M(Phil.),Inc.v.Batomalaque,G.R.No.151849,June23,2005,461SCRA111,118.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/162308.htm

13/13