CASE DIGEST: EMELITA NICARIO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION G.R. No. 125340. September 17, 1998 (Case Digest)

Concept: It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor.

Facts:

Emelita Nicario, was employed with respondent company Mancao Supermarket, 

on June 6, 1986 as a salesgirl and was later on promoted as sales supervisor. However, private respondent terminated her services on February 7, 1989. A complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for backwages, wage differential, service incentive leave pay, overtime pay, 13^th month pay and unpaid wages was filed by petitioner before the National Labor Relations Commission, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch X in Butuan City.

On July 25, 1989, Labor Arbiter Amado M. Solamo dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission.

NLRC set aside the labor arbiters decision for lack of due process. It ruled that since petitioner assailed her supposed signatures appearing on the payrolls presented by the company as a forgery, the labor arbiter should not have merely depended on the xerox copies of the payrolls, as submitted in evidence by the private respondent but ordered a formal hearing on the issue. Thus, the Commission ordered the case remanded to the arbitration branch for appropriate proceedings

Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. Not satisfied with the decision, private respondent appealed to the NLRC, and in a resolution dated August 16, 1995,^[4] the Commission affirmed in toto Labor Arbiter Macaraig-Guillens decision. Private respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration. In a resolution dated December 21, 1995, public respondent NLRC modified its earlier resolution by deleting the award for overtime pay and ruling that private respondent Antonio Mancao is not jointly and severally liable with Mancao Supermarket to pay petitioner the monetary award adjudged.

Petitioner now comes before this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC in ruling that (a) she is not entitled to overtime pay and (b) private respondent, Antonio Mancao cannot be held jointly and severally liable with respondent supermarket as to the monetary award.

Issue: W/ON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion

Held: Yes. This Court, in previously evaluating the evidentiary value of daily time records, especially those which show uniform entries with regard to the hours of work rendered by an employee, has ruled that such unvarying recording of a daily time record is improbable and contrary to human experience. It is impossible for an employee to arrive at the workplace and leave at exactly the same time, day in day out. The uniformity and regularity of the entries are badges of untruthfulness and as such indices of dubiety. The observations made by the Solicitor General regarding the unreliability of the daily time records would therefore seem more convincing. On the other hand, respondent company failed to present substantial evidence, other than the disputed DTRs, to prove that petitioner indeed worked for only eight hours a day. It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor.

Source and Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/125340.htm