Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc. (2021)

Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc, G.R. No. 224944, May 5, 2021, Per Lopez, M., J.:

1. Concept

• In his Position Paper filed before the Labor Arbiter, Department of Labor and Employment, Zonio alleged that on March 13, 2011, he was hired as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by respondent Romulo Q. Par (collectively, respondents). Zonio worked seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., alternately every two weeks, for a monthly wage of P8,500.00. From his wage, a cash bond of P50.00 and P10.00 miscellaneous fee, or a total of P60.00 were deducted every 15 days, or a total of P120.00 every month. Respondents did not pay him for overtime work, work rendered on holidays and rest days, as well as 13th month pay, service incentive leave, and night shift differential.

• On April 21, 2014, Zonio, along with some of his colleagues, received a memorandum suspending them from April 21, 2014 to May 20, 2014, for sleeping while on duty. There was no formal investigation conducted. Nonetheless, Zonio served the suspension and reported back to work on May 21, 2014. Respondents, however, refused to accept him.

• Thus, Zonio filed a complaint4 against respondents for illegal suspension underpayment of salary and 13th month pay; non-payment of overtime and holiday pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay; service incentive leave pay; night shift differential pay; reimbursement of cash bond and miscellaneous fees; moral and exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees.

• For its part, respondents justified Zonio’s suspension when its inspection team caught Zonio sleeping in his post on April 20, 2014, and took photographs6 of him as proof Respondents directed Zonio to report to the head office to explain, but Zonio disregarded the directive. Thus, in a memorandum dated April 21, 2014,7 respondents suspended him for 30 days, effective April 21, 2014, until May 20, 2014. As to Zonio’s money claims, he was oriented as to the salary and benefits to which he is entitled, and he agreed to it. Moreover, Wage Order No. IVA-14, provides that the minimum wage rate does not apply to persons employed in the personal service of another, such as a private security guard like Zonio. Lastly, respondents claimed attorney’s fees, and moral and exemplary damages for the besmirched goodwill and reputation that the company suffered by reason of the filing of the complaint.

2. SC Decision / Resolution

• Zonio proved his entitlement to monetary claims.

• In determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is shifted from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought. In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This standard follows the basic rule that in all illegal dismissal cases the burden rests on the defendant-employer to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff-employee to prove non-payment. This likewise stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents – which show that the differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer. On the other hand, for overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is shifted on the employee, as these monetary claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon the employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days.

• Here, to prove his entitlement to the payment of overtime pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay; and night shift differentials pay, Zonio submitted a photocopy of the logbook entries which showed the dates and shift when he reported for work, as well as the specific tasks he performed on that particular work shift. The logbook also contains the same information with regard to other security guards. Before and after each particular work shift, the incoming and outgoing security guard will sign the corresponding entry in the logbook. However, the logbook does not contain whether Zonio worked on holidays or during his rest days. Thus, Zonio’s claim for holiday and rest day premiums is denied for lack of factual basis. Meanwhile, the entries in the logbook showed that Zonio worked 12-hour shifts, which ran from 7:00 a.m./p.m. to 7:00 p.m./a.m. Thus, he is entitled to overtime pay for work performed beyond eight hours a day, or four hours for every shift. Likewise, Zonio is entitled to night-shift differential for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

• Admittedly, the logbook is only a personal record of Zonio and other security guards. It is not verified or countersigned by respondents. Anyway, the fact that the entries are not verified or countersigned will not militate against Zonio. The entries in the logbook are prima facie evidence of Zonio’s claim. Prima facie evidence is such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group, or chain of facts constituting the party’s claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence. Respondents dispute the veracity of the entries in the logbook, yet, they did not proffer evidence to rebut them, or show that they paid Zonio for the services he rendered on the dates and the hours indicated in the logbook. The best evidence for respondents would have been the payrolls, vouchers, payslips, daily time records, and the like, which are in their custody and absolute control. However, respondents did not present any of these. This failure gives rise to the presumption that either they do not have them, or if they do, their presentation is prejudicial to their cause.35 Moreover, respondents never denied that Zonio’s normal work hours is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., which is in excess of the regular eight working hours a day. Neither did respondents claim that they did not authorize Zonio to render overtime work. In this regard, we have already ruled that the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.

• Accordingly, Zonio should be paid for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours…

• Anent night shift differentials, Zonio is entitled to not less than 10% of his regular wage for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.