[BURDEN OF PROOF IN MONEY CLAIMS & LABOR STANDARDS CASES] o The CA explained that Canoy and Pigcaulan did
o The CA explained that Canoy and Pigcaulan did not cite any laws
PIGCAULAN VS. SECURITY AND CREDIT INVESTIGATION INC.
January 16, 2012 | DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner/s: Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan
Respondents: Security and Credit Investigation, Inc. (SCII) and/or Rene Reyes
th
Doctrine: The burden of proving payment of Holiday Pay, SILP, and 13 month rests
on SCII, the employer. One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even
when the complainant-employee alleges non-payment, it is still the defendant-
employer which has the burden of proving payment, rather than on the complainant-
employee to prove non-payment.
Facts:
 Petitioner Pigcaulan and an Oliver Canoy were both employed by SCII as
security guards. They were assigned to different SCII clients.
 Subsequently, they filed separate complaints for underpayment of salaries
and non-payment of OT, holiday, rest day, service incentive leave pay, and
13th month pays. These 2 complaints were consolidated
o In support of their claim, they submitted their respective daily time
records reflecting the number of hours served and their wages for
the same. They also presented itemized lists of their claims.
o SCII, in its defense, maintained that the two complainants were
paid their just salaries and benefits under the law. SCII claims that
their salaries were beyond the minimum wage and rates provided
by the Philippine Assoc. of Detective and Protective Agency
Operators (PADPAO) for security guards.
 SCII also claims that the complainants were paid the
proper premiums whenever they rendered work on
Sundays, holidays, and OT hours. They also received 13 th
month pay.
 SCII showed a copy of the payroll listings and the list of
employees who received 13th month pay.
 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainants, on the basis of their
itemized claims. The Labor Arbiter held that the payroll listings presented by
SCII does not prove that the complainants were actually paid such amounts,
because the payroll listings were unsigned by them.
o However, the 13th month list was held to be sufficient proof of
payment as these were signed by Canoy and Pigcaulan.
 The NLRC dismissed SCII’s appeal, holding that the evidence shows
underpayment of salaries as well as non-payment of certain benefits (i.e.
SILP).
o SCII then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
 The CA set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC, noting that there
were no factual and legal bases to support the conclusions made.
o The CA explained that the LA decision did not embody a detailed
and full explanation of the amount awarded.
o The CA disagreed with the LA regarding the probative value of the
payroll listings, the former court finding these to sufficiently prove
payment of the proper salaries.
to prove that they are entitled to SILP.
 The appeal to the Supreme Court was signed solely by Pigcaulan.
Issues/Ruling:
W/N the CA decision is final with regard to Canoy? – YES.
 The appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by Pigcaulan solely on his own
behalf. The prefatory statement only mentions Pigcaulan as petitioner. Under
the heading “parties”, only Pigcaulan is mentioned as the petitioner.
 The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the
appeal was signed by Pigcaulan alone. The certification was signed by a
lawyer as “counsel for petitioner pigcaulan” only.
o Canoy cannot now simply incorporate in his affidavit a verification of
the contents and allegations of the petition, as he is not a petitioner
in the appeal.
o It would’ve been different for Canoy had the appeal been filed in his
behalf. In such a case, Canoy may be allowed to belatedly submit a
verification and incorporate the appeal.
W/N there is substantial evidence to support the grant of overtime pay and rest
day pay - NO
 The Labor Arbiter, in granting OT and Rest day pay, relied heavily on the
itemized computations submitted by the complainants. The Supreme Court
explains that this is incorrect as these computations are self-serving,
unreliable, and unsubstantial evidence.
 These computations are unsigned and unauthenticated. As such, there is no
way of verifying the truth of the handwritten entries stated therein. The Court
found nothing in the records which substantially support the complainants’
claim that they render service beyond 8 hours, or that they render service on
rest days.
[Topic] W/N there is substantial evidence to support the grant of holiday,
service incentive leave, and 13th month pays – YES.
 Under Article 94 of the Labor Code, every worker shall be paid his regular
daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service
establishments regularly employing less than ten workers.
o Meanwhile, under Article 95, every employee who has rendered at
least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service
incentive of five days with pay.
o Also, under PD 851, all employers are required to pay their
employees a 13th month pay.
 Thus, under the Labor code, Pigcaulan is entitled to his regular rate on
holidays even if he does not work. Similarly, he is entitled to SILP by express
provision of law, simply by rendering service for more than a year. He is
likewise entitled to 13th month pay by provision of law.
 While the SCII presented payroll listings, these documents do not prove that
these claims have been paid.
o SCII failed to show by means of records, pertinent files, or similar
documents that these claims have been paid.
 o The burden of proving payment of these monetary claims rests on
SCII, the employer. One who pleads payment has the burden of
proving it. Even when the complainant alleges non-payment, it is
still the defendant which has the burden of proving payment, rather
than on the complainant to prove non-payment.

W/N the CA erred in dismissing the complaint? – YES

 While it is true that the Labor Arbiter did not include a specific computation
as basis for the monetary awards, such failure does not justify outright
dismissal of the complaint.
 The CA should’’ve instead remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for a
detailed computation.
 Note the rule that all money claims arising from an employee-employer
relationship shall be filed within 3 years from the time the cause of action
accrued. Hence, Pigcaulan can only demand the amounts due him for the
period within 3 years after the filing of the complaint.

Dispositive
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated

February 24, 2006 and Resolution dated June 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 85515 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Abduljuahid R.
Pigcaulan is hereby declared ENTITLED to holiday pay and service incentive leave
pay for the years 1997-2000 and proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2000.

The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the
exact amount and to make a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due
Abduljuahid R. Pigcaulan which Security and Credit Investigation Inc. should pay
without delay.

SO ORDERED.