27 Prangan v. NLRC

27 Prangan v.
NLRC
G.R. No. 126529 | 15 April 1998 | Romero | Santos 1. Private respondent Masagana Security Services Co. hired petitioner
Eduardo Prangan as one of its security guards. He was assigned to the Cat
PETITIONER: Eduardo Prangan House Bar and Restaurant with a monthly salary of 2,000php.
RESPONDENTS: NLRC, Masagana Security Services Co. 2. Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for underpayment of
wages, non-payment of salary, overtime pay, premiym pay for holiday, rest
RECIT-READY: Private respondent Masagana Security Services Co. hired day, night shift differential, etc.
petitioner Eduardo Prangan as one of its security guards. He was assigned to the 3. Private respondent rejected petitioner’s claim alleging that it merely acted as
Cat House Bar and Restaurant. Petitioner filed a complaint against private an agent of the latter in securing his employment at the Cat House Bar. It
respondent for underpayment of wages, non-payment of salary, overtime pay, shifts the liability for the claims of petitioner to Cat House Bar and its owner,
premiym pay for holiday, rest day, night shift differential, etc. Private respondent being his direct employer.
rejected petitioner’s claim alleging that it merely acted as an agent of the latter in 4. LA ruled in favor of petitioner and awarded 9,932php as a total of his money
securing his employment at the Cat House Bar. LA ruled in favor of petitioner. claims. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC contending that the LA erred in
NLRC affirmed. As proof of petitioner’s actual hours of work, private respondent concluding that he only worked for four hours and not twelve hours a day.
submitted the daily time records allegedly signed by the petitioner himsef Evidently, the shorter work hours resulted in a lower monetary award by the
showing that he only worked for four hours daily. However, petitioner counters LA.
that these daily time records were falsified because he was not even required to
submit one. NLRC dismissed his appeal, and affirmed the LA’s ruling. Petitioner argues
before the SC that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the NLRC on declaring he only worked for 4 hours, and not 12 hours.
When an employer alleges that his employee works less than the normal hours of 5. As proof of petitioner’s actual hours of work, private respondent submitted
employment provided for in the law, he bears the burden of proving his allegation the daily time records allegedly signed by the petitioner himsef showing that
with clear and satisfactory evidence. In this case, the NLRC relied solely on the he only worked for four hours daily. However, petitioner counters that these
alleged daily time records submitted by private respondent company. These daily time records were falsified because he was not even required to submit
documents cannot be considered substantial evidence to conclude that petitioner one.
only worked for four hours. Being an employer, hit has unlimited access to all
ISSUES: 1. W/N the NLRC erred in appreciating the evidence provided by
relevant documents on the hours of work of petitioner. However, no employment
respondent company? YES
contract, payroll, notice of assignment or posting, cash voucher, or any other
convincing evidence which may attest to the actual hours of work of the petitioner RULING:
was even presented. Instead, what the private respondent offered as evidence
were only petitioners daily time record, which the latter categorically denied ever 1. Findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they
accomplishing, much less signing. In sum, private respondent has not adequately coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded with respect even finality if
proved that petitioner’s actual hours of work is only 4 hours supported by substantial evidence. Substantial eevidence is such amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Absent such quantum of evidence, the Court is not precluded from making its own
independent evaluation of facts.
DOCTRINE:
When an employer alleges that his employee works less than the normal 2. There is no dispute that matters concerning an employee’s actual hours of work
hours of employment provided for in the law, he bears the burden of are within the ambit of management prerogrative. However, when an employer
proving his allegation with clear and satisfactory evidence. alleges that his employee works less than the normal hours of employment
provided for in the law, he bears the burden of proving his allegation with clear
and satisfactory evidence.
3. In this case, the NLRC relied solely on the alleged daily time records submitted by
FACTS: private respondent company. These documents cannot be considered substantial
evidence to conclude that petitioner only worked for four hours.
Petitioner has unequivocably stated that he never made nor submitted any daily time
record with respondent company considering that he was assigned to a single post.
He further claims that such daily records are all falsified, including his signature.
Private respondent did not bother to controvert such assertion. Being an employer, hit
has unlimited access to all relevant documents on the hours of work of petitioner.
However, no employment contract, payroll, notice of assignment or posting, cash
voucher, or any other convincing evidence which may attest to the actual hours of
work of the petitioner was even presented. Instead, what the private respondent
offered as evidence were only petitioners daily time record, which the latter
categorically denied ever accomplishing, much less signing.
In the submitted daily time record, petitioner started work at 10PM and would leave
his post at 2:00AM. It is impossible for an employee to arrive at the workplace and
leave at exactly the same time, day in day out. The very uniformity and regularity of
the entries are badges of untruthfulness and as such indices of dubiety.
Such is contrary to human experience, as it is impossible for an employee to arrive at

the workplace and leave at exactly the same time, day in day out. Another
consideration is the personnel data sheets and attendance sheets indicating the work
hours of petitioner are from 7:00PM to 7:00AM or twelve hours a day.
4. In sum, private respondent has not adequately proved that petitioner’s actual hours
of work is only 4 hours. Since it is the rule that in controversies between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of
agreements and and writings, should be resolved in the favor of labor.

27 Prangan v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

27 Prangan v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

27 Prangan v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

27 Prangan v.

Such is contrary to human experience, as it is impossible for an employee to arrive at

You might also like