Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TWELFTH (12th) DIVISION

ANGELITO ALINTON, CA-G.R. SP No. 165839

Petitioner,
Members:
- versus -
CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ROXAS, R.R.G., and
COMMISSION, K-9 SECURITY AMPUAN, A.D.,* JJ.
CORPORATION, G-3 SECURITY
SPECIALIST, 168 SECURITY
AGENCY, VINZON ANG, TIMOTHY Promulgated:
ANG, ET AL.,
Respondents. June 9, 2021
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE

This is a Petition for Certiorari, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules

of Court, which assails the Decision 1 dated August 30, 2019 and the
Resolution2 dated January 20, 2020 of the National Labor Relations
Commission, Fifth Division (NLRC), in NLRC NCR 10-17260-
18/NLRC LAC No. 03-001039-19.

The NLRC, in its August 30, 2019 Decision, denied the appeal
of Angelito E. Alinton (Alinton) and, in effect, affirmed the January 30,
2019 Decision of the labor arbiter who dismissed Alinton's complaint
for constructive dismissal and underpayment/non-payment of
salary/wages and other monetary benefits.

Alinton filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the NLRC

denied through its January 20, 2020 Resolution.

THE ANTECEDENTS

On April 17, 2015, Angelito E. Alinton (Alinton) was hired as a

CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 2 of 10
DECISION

security guard by G-3 Security Specialist (G-3 Security) with a daily

salary of ₱508.00 for a twelve-hour shift per day. Alinton was
deployed at different locations serving clients of G-3 Security. He was
last assigned “at Kirin, Meycauayan, Bulacan.” 3

Sometime in May 2018, Alinton was required to undergo re-

training at K-9 Security Corporation (K-9 Security). Several months
after the re-training, his employer continued to withhold his securiy
guard license. He was, therefore, “forced to severe (sic) his
employment.”4

Alinton alleged that “[d]uring his employment, [he] was only

paid” ₱508.00 for a twelve-hour shift on any given day. His employer
also failed to pay for his overtime pay, service incentive leave pay,
night shift differential and holiday pay. 5

Aggrieved by the treatment he received from his employer,

Alinton filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, underpayment of
wages, non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay, night shift differential, ECOLA and separation pay, moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.6

G-3 Security, et al. acknowledged hiring Alinton as a security

guard, whose employment with them commenced in 2015. Alinton's
last place of assignment was at Kirin Resources.7

Beginning on September 17, 2018, Alinton purportedly stopped

reporting for work at Kirin Resources without any explanation. G-3
Security subsequently issued, by registered mail, a first notice of
absence without official leave (AWOL) to Alinton. When G-3 Security
did not receive any response from Alinton, the company issued him a
second notice of AWOL.8

G-3 Security, et al. maintained that they did not constructively

dismiss Alinton. They pointed out that he was never “disdained or put
under any onerous condition” tantamount to constructive dismissal.
On the contrary, they issued him two notices to explain his
unauthorized absence at his post. However, they did not receive any
reply from Alinton who opted to file a complaint on the presumption
that he had been terminated.9

As for Alinton's monetary claims, G-3 Security, et al. contended

that “[t]he payrolls completely debunk the validity of [his] money
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 3 of 10
DECISION

claims.”10 G-3 Security, et al. added that like all the other security
guards under their employ, Alinton “sign[ed] the payrolls every time
[he] received [his] labor standards benefits which [are] incorporated
under the column 'Gross Pay' in the payrolls.” 11

Believing that Alinton's complaint against them was baseless,

G-3 Security, et al. prayed for its dismissal.12

In a Decision13 issued on January 30, 2019, the labor arbiter

dismissed Alinton's complaint. The labor arbiter addressed two issues
in her judgment, namely the allegation of constructive dismissal and
Alinton's monetary claims.

First, the labor arbiter found that:

xxx [Alinton] knowingly and voluntarily agreed to be

absorbed by the respondent agencies without any force, duress or
improper pressure [on him] and without any circumstances vitiating
consent, it satisfactorily appears that [he] freely forego[es his]
employment with the agency to which [he] w[as] previously
employed. With the cessation of [the] employer-employee
relationship of [Alinton] and the concerned agency, a complaint for
constructive dismissal will not attach. On this premise, the
complaint for constructive dismissal against the respondents must
be dismissed for lack of merit.14

Then, the labor arbiter similarly found that Alinton's monetary

claims were meritless. The labor arbiter continued:

xxx the respondents presented in evidence payrolls bearing

the signatures of [Alinton]. Examination of these pieces of evidence
show that [he] w[as] duly paid xxx [his] wages, overtime pay,
holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive
leave pay, night shift differential, ECOLA. 15

Dissatisfied with the pronouncements of the labor arbiter,

Alinton filed a Memorandum on Appeal 16 with the NLRC.

Alinton, in his appeal, insisted that he “is entitled to all his

money claims.”17 Referring to the rule that “the employer bears the
burden to prove that employees have received their wages and
benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law,” Alinton
underscored that his employers “failed to present necessary
documentary evidence to substantiate their allegation that [his]
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 4 of 10
DECISION

money claims were fully paid.”18

The NLRC dismissed Alinton's appeal. In its August 30, 2019

Decision,19 the labor tribunal disposed not only of Alinton's appeal but
also those filed by two of his fellow security guards. Hence, the NLRC
found it appropriate to qualify that “Alinton's claims w[ere] purely for
money claims” specifically “non-payment of salary differentials,
overtime pay, night shift differentials, holiday pay, SILP, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.”20

After stating that Alinton's appeal did not involve the question of
constructive dismissal and that it was limited to his monetary claims,
the NLRC held that:

xxx Alinton did not present any proof supporting his money
claims. Respondents, on the other hand, presented [their] payroll
register which contain[s] computations of the amounts payable to
[Alinton] for the given period, including a breakdown of the
additional pay and deductions on the amount due, and signatures
of [Alinton] affirmed received by [him] as [his] full compensation.

A perusal of the payroll register shows that [Alinton] duly and

properly received the compensation due [him], including overtime
pay, premium pay on rest days, legal and special holidays, if any,
night shift differentials, holiday pay, 13 th month pay, service
incentive leave pay and COLA.21 (Citation omitted)

Dejected by the dismissal of his appeal, Alinton filed a Motion

for Reconsideration22 which the NLRC denied in the Resolution 23 of
January 30, 2020.

Alinton, thereafter, filed this Petition for Certiorari.

THE ISSUE

Petitioner Alinton submits that:

THE [NLRC,] WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION[,]
ERRED IN FINDING THAT [THE PRIVATE] RESPONDENTS ARE
NOT LIABLE TO [THE] PETITIONER'S MONEY CLAIMS. 24

The petitioner reiterates the theory he espoused during the

CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 5 of 10
DECISION

proceedings before the labor agencies. Reminiscent of his Position

Paper and Memorandum on Appeal submitted to the labor arbiter and
the NLRC, respectively, he asserts that “[i]n case of employees'
money claims, the employer bears the burden to prove that
employees have received their wages and benefits and that the same
were paid in accordance with law.” 25 He then adds that “[i]t is
incumbent upon the employer to present the necessary documents to
prove such claims.”26 Alinton believes that his employers “failed to
present necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their
allegation that [his] money claims were properly and fully paid.” 27

OUR RULING

We dismiss this Petition.

A Petition for Certiorari, such as the one filed by Alinton, is

bound to crumble when the factual findings of the labor arbiter and
the NLRC are identical. Based on established case law, findings of
fact made by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC are not only
entitled to great respect, but even finality, and are considered binding
if the same are supported by substantial evidence. 28

The sole issue that Alinton raises in this Petition is his

entitlement to his monetary claims. That was also the route he took at
the NLRC. In fact, the NLRC underscored that Alinton's appeal was
limited to his claims for “salary differentials, overtime pay, night shift
differentials, holiday pay, SILP, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees.”29

Well-settled is the rule that in cases involving non-payment of

monetary claims of employees, the employer has the burden of
proving that the employees did receive their wages and benefits and
that the same were paid in accordance with law. 30 The rule is
elaborated in Symex Security Services, Inc. and Arcega v. Rivera, Jr.
and Yago,31 viz.:

xxx once the employee has set out with particularity in

his[/her] complaint, position paper, affidavits and other documents
the labor standard benefits [s/]he is entitled to, and which the
employer failed to pay him[/her], it becomes the employer's burden
to prove that it has paid these money claims. Once more, [one] who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it; and even where the
employees must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the
burden rests on the [employer] to prove payment, rather than on
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 6 of 10
DECISION

the [employee] to prove nonpayment.32

The rationale for the rule is this:

xxx accessibility over the employment records, pertinent

personnel files, payrolls, remittances, and other similar documents
which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave,
and other claims have been paid to the employee is exclusively
within the custody and absolute control of the employer. 33

In this case, both the NLRC and the labor arbiter found that
Alinton's employers met his contention head-on. To discharge their
burden of proof, the private respondents presented their payroll
register34 covering the period of the petitioner's employment with
them. Aside from indicating the period of employment, the payroll
register specifies the names of the employees, the number of days
worked and the amount of wages they received which include, among
others, their regular pay, overtime pay, rest day premium and night
differential. The signatures of the employees appear in the last
column to indicate their receipt of the salary and other benefits listed
down beside their name. Alinton's employers, who have the burden of
proving that he did receive his wages and benefits and that the same
were paid in accordance with law, presented relevant documentary
evidence to disprove Alinton's claim of non-payment.

After poring over the payroll register submitted by the private

respondents, We add our assent to the conclusion of the NRLC and
the labor arbiter that “the payroll register shows that [Alinton] duly and
properly received the compensation due [him], including overtime
pay, premium pay on rest days, legal and special holidays, if any,
night shift differentials, holiday pay, 13 th month pay, service incentive
leave pay and COLA.”35

It bears emphasis that during the appeal proceedings before

the NLRC and now before Us, Alinton has remained silent as to the
significance of the payroll register in determining the veracity of his
claim that he was not properly paid by his employers. From the NLRC
to Us, Alinton kept harping on the doctrine enunciated in Mark Roche
International v. NLRC, et al.36 which, in part, reads:

In case of employees' money claims, the employer bears the

burden to prove that employees have received their wages and
benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law. It is
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 7 of 10
DECISION

incumbent upon the employer to present the necessary documents

to prove such claims.37

Decided in 1999, the doctrine in Mark Roche International is still

good law, as in fact it is exactly the same rule that We cited albeit as
laid out in more recent cases. However, there is a vital difference
between the factual circumstances in Mark Roche International and
those in Alinton's case. In Mark Roche International, it was noted that
the employers “failed to present necessary documentary evidence to
substantiate their allegation that [the employees]' money claims were
fully paid.”38 The employers “could have presented documentary
evidence at any time before the Labor Arbiter and, on appeal, before
the NLRC,”39 but they failed to do so.

That is not the case with Alinton's employers. As correctly

observed by the NLRC:

xxx Alinton did not present any proof supporting his money
claims. [His employers], on the other hand, presented [their] payroll
register which contain[s] computations of the amounts payable to
[Alinton] for the given period, including a breakdown of the
additional pay and deductions on the amount due, and signatures
of [Alinton] affirmed received by [him] as [his] full compensation. 40

Hence, between the petitioner's bare allegation of non-payment

and the private respondents' counter-statement substantiated by
pertinent company records, i.e., the payroll register, the latter
deserves more credence.

Additionally, Alinton did not disavow signing the payroll register

and receiving the salary and benefits enumerated therein. While it
does not have any bearing on Alinton's case, it is worth mentioning
that during the appeal before the NLRC, two of Alinton's colleagues
who appealed with him attempted to discredit the payroll register by
claiming that its preparation was fraudulent and that their employers
were engaged in payroll padding. 41 The NLRC characterized these
assertions as “mere statements uncorroborated by any proof proving
the same.”42

In his own appeal at the NLRC and in this Petition, Alinton does
not make any claim of fraud in the preparation of the payroll register.
In fact, he does not make any specific allegation as to why the payroll
register should not be given evidentiary weight. Entries in the payroll,
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 8 of 10
DECISION

being entries in the course of business, enjoy the presumption of

regularity under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, and
absent any evidence showing the contrary, good faith must be
presumed in the preparation and signing of such payrolls. 43

In closing, We reiterate that:

Certiorari proceedings are limited in scope and narrow in

character because they only correct acts rendered without
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion. Indeed, relief in a special civil action for certiorari is
available only when the following essential requisites concur: (a)
the petition must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) the tribunal, board,
or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction; and (c) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It will issue to
correct errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment,
particularly in the findings or conclusions of the quasi-judicial
tribunals (such as the NLRC). Accordingly, when a petition for
certiorari is filed, the judicial inquiry should be limited to the issue of
whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.44

And, grave abuse of discretion has a very specific meaning,

namely:

xxx a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done

in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, the
character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law. 45

When applied to labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be

ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are not
supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion.46

Hence, when the ruling of the NLRC has basis in the evidence
and the applicable law and jurisprudence, such as in this case, then
no grave abuse of discretion exists and We should so declare and,
accordingly, dismiss the petition.47
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 9 of 10
DECISION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari

filed by Angelito Alinton is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RUBEN REYNALDO G. ROXAS ALFREDO D. AMPUAN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twelfth Division

*
Acting Third/Junior Member per Office Order No. 139-21-RSF dated May 25, 2021.
1
Penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, with Presiding Commissioner Grace
E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley concurring, Annex “F” in the
Petition, Rollo, pp. 221-233.
2
Also penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap, with Presiding Commissioner
Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley concurring, Annex “H” in the
Petition, Rollo, pp. 238-240.
3
Alinton's Position Paper (submitted to labor arbiter), Rollo, p. 32.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
See labor arbiter's Decision dated January 30, 2019, Annex “D” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 210.
7
G-3 Security's Position Paper (submitted to labor arbiter), Annex “C” in the Petition, Rollo, p.
36.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165839 Page 10 of 10
DECISION

8
Id., p. 37.
9
Id., p. 38.
10
Id., p. 38.
11
Id., p. 37.
12
Id., p. 40.
13
Per Labor Arbiter Michelle P. Pagtalunan, Annex “D” in the Petition, Rollo, pp. 210-214.
14
Ibid. at p. 213.
15
Ibid. at p. 213.
16
Annex “E” in the Petition, Rollo, pp. 216-220.
17
Ibid. at p. 218.
18
Ibid. at p. 218.
19
Supra note 1.
20
Supra note 1 at p. 225.
21
Supra note 1 at p. 231.
22
Annex “G” in the Petition, Rollo, pp. 236-237.
23
Supra note 2.
24
Petition for Certiorari, Rollo, p. 20.
25
Id., p. 21.
26
Id., p. 21.
27
Id., p. 21.
28
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 155306, August
28, 2013, 716 Phil. 500. See also Spouses Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 354
Phil. 918, 931 (1998) and Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 367 Phil. 259, 263 (1999).
29
NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2019, Annex “F” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 225.
30
Asentista v. Jupp & Company, Inc., and/or Ascutia, G.R. No. 229404, January 24, 2018.
31
G.R. No. 202613, November 8, 2017.
32
Id.
33
Asentista v. Jupp & Company, Inc., and/or Ascutia, supra note 30, citing Heirs of Manuel H.
Ridad, et al. v. Gregorio Araneta Foundation, 703 Phil. 531, 538 (2013).
34
See Rollo, pp. 51-209.
35
NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2019, Annex “F” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 231.
36
G.R. No. 123825, August 31, 1999, 372 Phil. 238.
37
Id.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2019, Annex “F” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 231.
41
See NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2019, Annex “F” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 231.
42
NLRC Decision dated August 30, 2019, Annex “F” in the Petition, Rollo, p. 231.
43
Cf. Office of the Ombudsman v. Cynthia E. Caberoy, G.R. No. 188066, October 22, 2014,
746 Phil. 111; Sapio v. Undaloc Construction, G.R. No. 155034, May 22, 2008, 577 Phil. 39.
44
Gabriel v. Petron Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018.
45
University of Santo Tomas v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST, et al., G.R. No. 184262,
April 24, 2017, 809 Phil. 212.
46
Id.
47
Id.