G.R. No. 121439.

January 25, 2000 A temporary restraining order was issued by

this Court on October 9, 1995 enjoining
AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE public respondent from executing the
INCORPORATED (AKELCO), Petitioner, questioned decision upon a surety bond
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS posted by petitioner in the amount of
COMMISSION (Fourth Division), P6,400,000.00.2 cräläwvirt u alib räry

RODOLFO M. RETISO and 165

OTHERS,1 Respondents. The facts as found by the Labor Arbiter are
as follows:3
cräl äwv irt u alib räry

DECISION
"These are consolidated cases/claims for
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: non-payment of salaries and wages, 13th
month pay, ECOLA and other fringe benefits
In his petition for certiorari and prohibition as rice, medical and clothing allowances,
with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction submitted by complainant Rodolfo M. Retiso
and/or temporary restraining order, and 163 others, Lyn E. Banilla and Wilson B.
petitioner assails (a) the decision dated April Sallador against respondents Aklan Electric
20, 1995, of public respondent National Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO), Atty. Leovigildo
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fourth Mationg in his capacity as General Manager;
(4th) Division, Cebu City, in NLRC Case No. Manuel Calizo, in his capacity as Acting
V-0143-94 reversing the February 25, 1994 Board President, Board of Directors,
decision of Labor Arbiter Dennis D. Juanon AKELCO.
and ordering petitioner to pay wages in the
aggregate amount of P6,485,767.90 to Complainants alleged that prior to the
private respondents, and (b) the resolution temporary transfer of the office of AKELCO
dated July 28, 1995 denying petitioners from Lezo Aklan to Amon Theater, Kalibo,
motion for reconsideration, for having been Aklan, complainants were continuously
issued with grave abuse of discretion. performing their task and were duly paid of
their salaries at their main office located at That complainants who were then reporting
Lezo, Aklan. at the Lezo office from January 1992 up to
May 1992 were duly paid of their salaries,
That on January 22, 1992, by way of while in the meantime some of the
resolution of the Board of Directors of employees through the instigation of
AKELCO allowed the temporary transfer respondent Mationg continued to remain and
holding of office at Amon Theater, Kalibo, work at Kalibo, Aklan;
Aklan per information by their Project
Supervisor, Atty. Leovigildo Mationg, that That from June 1992 up to March 18, 1993,
their head office is closed and that it is complainants who continuously reported for
dangerous to hold office thereat; work at Lezo, Aklan in compliance with the
aforementioned resolution were not paid
Nevertheless, majority of the employees their salaries;
including herein complainants continued to
report for work at Lezo Aklan and were paid That on March 19, 1993 up to the present,
of their salaries. complainants were again allowed to draw
their salaries; with the exception of a few
That on February 6, 1992, the administrator complainants who were not paid their
of NEA, Rodrigo Cabrera, wrote a letter salaries for the months of April and May
addressed to the Board of AKELCO, that he 1993;
is not interposing any objections to the
action taken by respondent Mationg Per allegations of the respondents, the
following are the facts:
That on February 11, 1992, unnumbered
resolution was passed by the Board of 1. That these complainants voluntarily
AKELCO withdrawing the temporary abandoned their respective work/job
designation of office at Kalibo, Aklan, and assignments, without any justifiable reason
that the daily operations must be held again and without notifying the management of
at the main office of Lezo, Aklan;4 crä lä wvirt u alib räry the Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(AKELCO), hence the cooperative suffered slowdown mass leaves, sit downs, attempts
damages and systems loss; to damage, destroy or sabotage plant
equipment and facilities of the Aklan Electric
2. That the complainants herein defied the Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO)."
lawful orders and other issuances by the
General Manager and the Board of Directors On February 25, 1994, a decision was
of the AKELCO. These complainants were rendered by Labor Arbiter Dennis D. Juanon
requested to report to work at the Kalibo dismissing the complaints.5 cräl äw virt u alib räry

office x x x but despite these lawful orders

of the General Manager, the complainants Dissatisfied with the decision, private
did not follow and wilfully and maliciously respondents appealed to the respondent
defied said orders and issuance of the Commission.
General Manager; that the Board of
Directors passed a Resolution resisting and On appeal, the NLRCs Fourth Division, Cebu
denying the claims of these complainants, x City,6 reversed and set aside the Labor
x x under the principle of "no work no pay" Arbiters decision and held that private
which is legally justified; That these respondents are entitled to unpaid wages
complainants have "mass leave" from their from June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993,
customary work on June 1992 up to March thus:7crä lä wvirt u alib räry

18, 1993 and had a "sit-down" stance for

"The evidence on records, more specifically
these periods of time in their alleged protest
the evidence submitted by the
of the appointment of respondent Atty.
complainants, which are: the letter dated
Leovigildo Mationg as the new General
April 7, 1993 of Pedrito L. Leyson, Office
Manager of the Aklan Electric Cooperative,
Manager of AKELCO (Annex "C";
Inc. (AKELCO) by the Board of Directors and
complainants position paper; Rollo, p.102)
confirmed by the Administrator of the
addressed to respondent Atty. Leovigildo T.
National Electrification Administration (NEA),
Mationg; respondent AKELCO General
Quezon City; That they engaged in " . . .
Manager; the memorandum of said Atty.
Mationg dated 14 April 1993, in answer to This assurance is an admission that
the letter of Pedrito Leyson (Annex "D" complainants are entitled to payment for
complainants position paper); as well as the services rendered from June 16, 1992 to
computation of the unpaid wages due to March 18, 1993, specially so that the
complainants (Annexes "E" to "E-3"; recommendation and request comes from
complainants position paper, Rollo, pages the office manager himself who has direct
1024 to 1027) clearly show that knowledge regarding the services and
complainants had rendered services during performance of employees under him. For
the period - June 16, 1992 to March 18, how could one office manager recommend
1993. The record is bereft of any showing payment of wages, if no services were
that the respondents had submitted any rendered by employees under him. An office
evidence, documentary or otherwise, to manager is the most qualified person to
controvert this asseveration of the know the performance of personnel under
complainants that services were rendered him. And therefore, any request coming
during this period. Subjecting these from him for payment of wages addressed
evidences submitted by the complainants to to his superior as in the instant case shall be
the crucible of scrutiny, We find that given weight.
respondent Atty. Mationg responded to the
request of the Office Manager, Mr. Leyson, Furthermore, the record is clear that
which We quote, to wit: complainants were paid of their wages and
other fringe benefits from January, 1992 to
"Rest assured that We shall recommend May, 1992 and from March 19, 1993 up to
your aforesaid request to our Board of the time complainants filed the instant
Directors for their consideration and cases. In the interegnum, from June 16,
appropriate action. This payment, however, 1992 to March 18, 1993, complainants were
shall be subject, among others, to the not paid of their salaries, hence these
availability of funds." claims. We could see no rhyme nor reason
in respondents refusal to pay complainants
salaries during this period when Petitioner brought the case to this Court
complainants had worked and actually alleging that respondent NLRC committed
rendered service to AKELCO. grave abuse of discretion citing the following
grounds:9 cr älä wvirt u alib räry

While the respondents maintain that

complainants were not paid during this 1. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED
interim period under the principle of "no GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
work, no pay", however, no proof was REVERSING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND
submitted by the respondents to CONCLUSIONS OF THE LABOR ARBITER,
substantiate this allegation. The labor AND DISREGARDING THE EXPRESS
arbiter, therefore, erred in dismissing the ADMISSION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
claims of the complainants, when he THAT THEY DEFIED PETITIONERS ORDER
adopted the "no work, no pay" principle TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONERS OFFICIAL
advanced by the respondents. BUSINESS OFFICE FROM LEZO TO KALIBO
AND FOR THEM TO REPORT THEREAT.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
appealed decision dated February 25, 1994 2. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED
is hereby Reversed and Set Aside and a new GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
one entered ordering respondent AKELCO to CONCLUDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
pay complainants their claims amounting to WERE REALLY WORKING OR RENDERING
P6,485,767.90 as shown in the computation SERVICE ON THE BASIS OF THE
(Annexes "E" to "E-3")." COMPUTATION OF WAGES AND THE BIASED
RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTED BY LEYSON
A motion for reconsideration was filed by WHO IS ONE OF THE PRIVATE
petitioner but the same was denied by RESPONDENTS WHO DEFIED THE LAWFUL
public respondent in a resolution dated July ORDERS OF PETITIONER.
28, 1995.8cräläwvirt u alib räry
3. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLY FOR LACK OF
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT WHEN PRIVATE
CONSIDERING THE ASSURANCE BY REPONDENTS ALREADY ADMITTED THAT
PETITIONERS GENERAL MANAGER MATIONG THEY DID NOT REPORT FOR WORK AT THE
TO RECOMMEND THE PAYMENT OF THE KALIBO OFFICE.
CLAIMS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS AN
ADMISSION OF LIABILITY OR A 6. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED
RECOGNITION THAT COMPENSABLE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY RENDERED. ACCORDING WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY TO
THE SELF-SERVING AND BIASED
4. GRANTING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS,
CONTINUED TO REPORT AT THE LEZO AND ACCEPTING THEM AS PROOF, DESPITE
OFFICE, IT IS STILL GRAVE ABUSE OF THE ESTABLISHED FACT AND ADMISSION
DISCRETION FOR PUBLIC RESPONDENT TO THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DID NOT
CONSIDER THAT PETITIONER IS LEGALLY REPORT FOR WORK AT THE KALIBO OFFICE,
OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE SAID OR THAT THEY WERE NEVER PAID FOR ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE AS COMPENSABLE SERVICE WAGES FROM THE TIME THEY DEFIED
AND PAY WAGES TO PRIVATE PETITIONERS ORDERS.
RESPONDENTS FOR DEFYING THE ORDER
FOR THEM TO REPORT FOR WORK AT THE Petitioner contends that public respondent
KALIBO OFFICE WHERE THE OFFICIAL committed grave abuse of discretion in
BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS WERE finding that private respondents are entitled
CONDUCTED. to their wages from June 16, 1992 to March
18, 1993, thus disregarding the principle of
5. PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED "no work, no pay". It alleges that private
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND respondents stated in their pleadings that
SERIOUS, PATENT AND PALPABLE ERROR IN they not only objected to the transfer of
RULING THAT THE "NO WORK, NO PAY" petitioners business office to Kalibo but they
also defied the directive to report thereat petitioners Board agreed to accept private
because they considered the transfer illegal. respondents back to work at Kalibo office
It further claims that private respondents out of compassion and not for the reason
refused to recognize the authority of that they rendered service at the Lezo
petitioners lawful officers and agents office. Petitioner also adds that compensable
resulting in the disruption of petitioners service is best shown by timecards, payslips
business operations in its official business and other similar documents and it was an
office in Lezo, AKlan, forcing petitioner to error for public respondent to consider the
transfer its office from Lezo to Kalibo computation of the claims for wages and
transferring all its equipments, records and benefits submitted merely by private
facilities; that private respondents cannot respondents as substantial evidence.
choose where to work, thus, when they
defied the lawful orders of petitioner to The Solicitor General filed its Manifestation
report at Kalibo, private respondents were in lieu of Comment praying that the decision
considered dismissed as far as petitioner of respondent NLRC be set aside and
was concerned. Petitioner also disputes payment of wages claimed by private
private respondents allegation that they respondents be denied for lack of merit
were paid their salaries from January to May alleging that private respondents could not
1992 and again from March 19, 1993 up to have worked for petitioner's office in Lezo
the present but not for the period from June during the stated period since petitioner
1992 to March 18, 1993 saying that private transferred its business operation in Kalibo
respondents illegally collected fees and where all its records and equipments were
charges due petitioner and appropriated the brought; that computations of the claims for
collections among themselves for which wages and benefits submitted by private
reason they are claiming salaries only for respondents to petitioner is not proof of
the period from June 1992 to March 1993 rendition of work. Filing its own Comment,
and that private respondents were paid their public respondent NLRC claims that the
salaries starting only in April 1993 when original and exclusive jurisdiction of this
Court to review decisions or resolutions of for services rendered. Private respondents
respondent NLRC does not include a state that in appreciating the evidence in
correction of its evaluation of evidence as their favor, public respondent NLRC at most
factual issues are not fit subject may be liable for errors of judgment which,
for certiorari. as differentiated from errors of jurisdiction,
are not within the province of the special
Private respondents, in their Comment, civil action of certiorari.
allege that review of a decision of NLRC in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not Petitioner filed its Reply alleging that review
include the correctness of its evaluation of of the decision of public respondent is
the evidence but is confined to issues of proper if there is a conflict in the factual
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC
that factual findings of administrative bodies and when the evidence is insufficient and
are entitled to great weight, and accorded insubstantial to support NLRCs factual
not only respect but even finality when findings; that public respondents findings
supported by substantial evidence. They that private respondents rendered
claim that petitioner's Board of Directors compensable services were merely based on
passed an unnumbered resolution on private respondents computation of claims
February 11, 1992 returning back the office which is self-serving; that the alleged
to Lezo from Kalibo Aklan with a directive unnumbered board resolution dated
for all employees to immediately report at February 11, 1992, directing all employees
Lezo; that the letter-reply of Atty. Mationg to report to Lezo Office was never
to the letter of office manager Leyson that implemented because it was not a valid
he will recommend the payment of the action of AKELCOs legitimate board.
private respondents' salary from June 16,
1992 to March 18, 1993 to the Board of The sole issue for determination is whether
Directors was an admission that private or not public respondent NLRC committed
respondents are entitled to such payment grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or want of jurisdiction when it to compel a contrary conclusion, this court
reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter had not hesitated to reverse their factual
that private respondents refused to work findings.11 Factual findings of administrative
under the lawful orders of the petitioner agencies are not infallible and will be set
AKELCO management; hence they are aside when they fail the test of
covered by the "no work, no pay" principle arbitrariness.12 Moreover, where the findings
and are thus not entitled to the claim for of NLRC contradict those of the labor
unpaid wages from June 16, 1992 to March arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its
18, 1993. equity jurisdiction, may look into the records
of the case and reexamine the questioned
We find merit in the petition. findings.13
crälä wvirt u alib räry

At the outset, we reiterate the rule that We find cogent reason, as shown by the
in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, this petitioner and the Solicitor General, not to
Court does not assess and weigh the affirm the factual findings of public
sufficiency of evidence upon which the labor respondent NLRC.
arbiter and public respondent NLRC based
their resolutions. Our query is limited to the We do not agree with the finding that
determination of whether or not public private respondents had rendered services
respondent NLRC acted without or in excess from June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993 so as
of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of to entitle them to payment of wages. Public
discretion in rendering the assailed respondent based its conclusion on the
resolutions.10 While administrative findings following: (a) the letter dated April 7, 1993
of fact are accorded great respect, and even of Pedrito L. Leyson, Office Manager of
finality when supported by substantial AKELCO addressed to AKELCOs General
evidence, nevertheless, when it can be Manager, Atty. Leovigildo T. Mationg,
shown that administrative bodies grossly requesting for the payment of private
misappreciated evidence of such nature as respondents unpaid wages from June 16,
1992 to March 18, 1993; (b) the performance of employees under him. We
memorandum of said Atty. Mationg dated 14 are not convinced. Pedrito Leyson is one of
April 1993, in answer to the letter request of the herein private respondents who are
Pedrito Leyson where Atty. Mationg made an claiming for unpaid wages and we find his
assurance that he will recommend such actuation of requesting in behalf of the other
request; (c) the private respondents own private respondents for the payment of their
computation of their unpaid wages. We find backwages to be biased and self-serving,
that the foregoing does not constitute thus not credible.
substantial evidence to support the
conclusion that private respondents are On the other hand, petitioner was able to
entitled to the payment of wages from June show that private respondents did not
16, 1992 to March 18, 1993. Substantial render services during the stated period.
evidence is that amount of relevant Petitioners evidences show that on January
evidence which a reasonable mind might 22, 1992, petitioners Board of Directors
accept as adequate to justify a passed a resolution temporarily transferring
conclusion.14 These evidences relied upon by the Office from Lezo, Aklan to Amon
public respondent did not establish the fact Theater, Kalibo, Aklan upon the
that private respondents actually rendered recommendation of Atty. Leovigildo Mationg,
services in the Kalibo office during the then project supervisor, on the ground that
stated period. the office at Lezo was dangerous and
unsafe. Such transfer was approved by then
The letter of Pedrito Leyson to Atty. Mationg NEA Administrator, Rodrigo E. Cabrera, in a
was considered by public respondent as letter dated February 6, 1992 addressed to
evidence that services were rendered by petitioners Board of Directors.15 Thus, the
private respondents during the stated NEA Administrator, in the exercise of
period, as the recommendation and request supervision and control over all electric
came from the office manager who has cooperatives, including petitioner, wrote a
direct knowledge regarding the services and letter dated February 6, 1992 addressed to
the Provincial Director PC/INP Kalibo Aklan Moreover, private respondents in their
requesting for military assistance for the position paper admitted that they did not
petitioners team in retrieving the electric report at the Kalibo office, as Lezo remained
cooperatives equipments and other to be their office where they continuously
removable facilities and/or fixtures reported, to wit:17
cräl äwv irt u alib räry

consequential to the transfer of its principal

business address from Lezo to Kalibo and in "On January 22, 1991 by way of a resolution
maintaining peace and order in the of the Board of Directors of AKELCO it
cooperatives coverage area.16 The foregoing allowed the temporary holding of office at
establishes the fact that the continuous Amon Theater, Kalibo, Aklan, per
operation of the petitioners business office information by their project supervisor, Atty.
in Lezo Aklan would pose a serious and Leovigildo Mationg that their head office is
imminent threat to petitioners officials and closed and that it is dangerous to hold office
other employees, hence the necessity of thereat.
temporarily transferring the operation of its
business office from Lezo to Kalibo. Such Nevertheless, majority of the employees
transfer was done in the exercise of a including the herein complainants, continued
management prerogative and in the absence to report for work at Lezo, Aklan and were
of contrary evidence is not unjustified. With paid of their salaries.
the transfer of petitioners business office
xxx
from its former office, Lezo, to Kalibo,
Aklan, its equipments, records and facilities
The transfer of office from Lezo, Aklan to
were also removed from Lezo and brought Kalibo, Aklan being illegal for failure to
to the Kalibo office where petitioners official
comply with the legal requirements under
business was being conducted; thus private
P.D. 269, the complainants remained and
respondents allegations that they continued
continued to work at the Lezo Office until
to report for work at Lezo to support their
they were illegally locked out therefrom by
claim for wages has no basis.
the respondents. Despite the illegal lock out
however, complainants continued to report is continuing and uninterrupted and they are
daily to the location of the Lezo Office, therefore entitled to their unpaid wages for
prepared to continue in the performance of the period from June 1992 to March 1993."
their regular duties.
The admission is detrimental to private
Complainants thus could not be considered respondents cause. Their excuse is that the
to have abandoned their work as Lezo transfer to Kalibo was illegal but we agree
remained to be their office and not Kalibo with the Labor Arbiter that it was not for
despite the temporary transfer thereto. private respondents to declare the
Further the fact that they were allowed to managements act of temporarily
draw their salaries up to May, 1992 is an transferring the AKELCO office to Kalibo as
acknowledgment by the management that an illegal act. There is no allegation nor
they are working during the period. proof that the transfer was made in bad
faith or with malice. The Labor Arbiter
xxx correctly rationalized in its decision as
follows:18
It must be pointed out that complainants
cräl äwv irt u alib räry

worked and continuously reported at Lezo "We do not subscribe to complainants theory
office despite the management holding and assertions. They, by their own
office at Kalibo. In fact, they were paid their allegations, have unilaterally committed acts
wages before it was withheld and then were in violation of managements/respondents
allowed to draw their salaries again on directives purely classified as management
March 1993 while reporting at Lezo up to prerogative. They have taken amongst
the present. themselves declaring managements acts
of temporarily transferring the holding of the
Respondents acts and payment of AKELCO office from Lezo to Kalibo, Aklan as
complainants salaries and again from March illegal. It is never incumbent upon
1993 is an unequivoecognition on the part of themselves to declare the same as such. It
respondents that the work of complainants
is lodged in another forum or body legally Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare
mantled to do the same. What they should of the employees it must also protect the
have done was first to follow managements right of an employer to exercise what are
orders temporarily transferring office for it clearly management prerogatives. The free
has the first presumption of legality. will of management to conduct its own
Further, the transfer was only temporary. business affairs to achieve its purpose can
For: not be denied. The transfer of assignment of
a mediepresentative from Manila to the
"The employer as owner of the business, province has therefore been held lawful
also has inherent rights, among which are where this was demanded by the
the right to select the persons to be hired requirements of the drug companys
and discharge them for just and valid cause; marketing operations and the former had at
to promulgate and enforce reasonable the time of his employment undertaken to
employment rules and regulations and to accept assignment anywhere in the
modify, amend or revoke the same; to Philippines. (Abbot Laboratories (Phils.),
designate the work as well as the employee Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. L-
or employees to perform it; to transfer or 76959, Oct. 12, 1987).
promote employees; to schedule, direct,
curtail or control company operations; to It is the employers prerogative to abolish a
introduce or install new or improved labor or position which it deems no longer
money savings methods, facilities or necessary, and the courts, absent any
devices; to create, merge, divide, reclassify findings of malice on the part of the
and abolish departments or positions in the management, cannot erase that initiative
company and to sell or close the business. simply to protect the person holding office
(Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs.
xxx NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 88011, July 30,
1990)."
Private respondents claim that petitioners issuances, out of compassion, reconciliation,
Board of Directors passed an unnumbered Christian values and humanitarian reason
resolution dated February 11, 1992 subject to the condition of "no work, no
returning back the office from its temporary pay"20 (3) Resolution No. 496, s. of 1993
office in Kalibo to Lezo. Thus, they did not dated June 4, 1993, rejecting the demands
defy any lawful order of petitioner and were of private respondents for backwages from
justified in continuing to remain at Lezo June 16, 1992 to March 1993 adopting the
office. This allegation was controverted by policy of "no work, no pay" as such demand
petitioner in its Reply saying that such has no basis, and directing the COOP Legal
unnumbered resolution was never Counsel to file criminal cases against
implemented as it was not a valid act of employees who misappropriated collections
petitioners Board. We are convinced by and officers who authorized disbursements
petitioners argument that such unnumbered of funds without legal authority from the
resolution was not a valid act of petitioners NEA and the AKELCO Board.21 If indeed
legitimate Board considering the subsequent there was a valid board resolution
actions taken by the petitioners Board of transferring back petitioners office to Lezo
Directors decrying private respondents from its temporary office in Kalibo, there
inimical act and defiance, to wit (1) was no need for the Board to pass the
Resolution No. 411, s. of 1992 on above-cited resolutions.
September 9, 1992, dismissing all AKELCO
employees who were on illegal strike and We are also unable to agree with public
who refused to return to work effective respondent NLRC when it held that the
January 31, 1992 despite the directive of assurance made by Atty. Mationg to the
the NEA project supervisor and petitioners letter-request of office manager Leyson for
acting general manager;19 (2) Resolution the payment of private respondents wages
No. 477, s. of 1993 dated March 10, 1993 from June 1992 to March 1993 was an
accepting back private respondents who admission on the part of general manager
staged illegal strike, defied legal orders and Mationg that private respondents are indeed
entitled to the same. The letter reply of We are accordingly constrained to overturn
Atty. Mationg to Leyson merely stated that public respondents findings that petitioner is
he will recommend the request for payment not justified in its refusal to pay private
of backwages to the Board of Directors for respondents wages and other fringe benefits
their consideration and appropriate action from June 16, 1992 to March 18, 1993;
and nothing else, thus, the ultimate public respondents stated that private
approval will come from the Board of respondents were paid their salaries from
Directors. We find well-taken the argument January to May 1992 and again from March
advanced by the Solicitor General as 19, 1993 up to the present. As cited earlier,
follows:22
cräl äwv irt u alib räry petitioners Board in a Resolution No. 411
dated September 9, 1992 dismissed private
The allegation of private respondents that respondents who were on illegal strike and
petitioner had already approved payment of who refused to report for work at Kalibo
their wages is without basis. Mationgs offer office effective January 31, 1992; since no
to recommend the payment of private services were rendered by private
respondents' wages is hardly approval of respondents they were not paid their
their claim for wages. It is just an salaries. Private respondents never
undertaking to recommend payment. questioned nor controverted the Resolution
Moreover, the offer is conditional. It is dismissing them and nowhere in their
subject to the condition that petitioners Comment is it stated that they questioned
Board of Directors will give its approval and such dismissal. Private respondents also
that funds were available. Mationgs reply to have not rebutted petitioners claim that
Leysons letter for payment of wages did not private respondents illegally collected fees
constitute approval or assurance of and charges due petitioner and appropriated
payment. The fact is that, the Board of the collections among themselves to satisfy
Directors of petitioner rejected private their salaries from January to May 1992, for
respondents demand for payment (Board which reason, private respondents are
Resolution No. 496, s. 1993).
merely claiming salaries only for the period work performed by the employee there can
from June 16, 1992 to March 1993. be no wage or pay unless, of course, the
laborer was able, willing and ready to work
Private respondents were dismissed by but was illegally locked out, suspended or
petitioner effective January 31, 1992 and dismissed,23 or otherwise illegally prevented
were accepted back by petitioner, as an act from working,24 a situation which we find is
of compassion, subject to the condition of not present in the instant case. It would
"no work, no pay" effective March 1993 neither be fair nor just to allow private
which explains why private respondents respondents to recover something they have
were allowed to draw their salaries again. not earned and could not have earned
Notably, the letter-request of Mr. Leyson for because they did not render services at the
the payment of backwages and other fringe Kalibo office during the stated period.
benefits in behalf of private respondents was
made only in April 1993, after a Board Finally, we hold that public respondent erred
Resolution accepting them back to work out in merely relying on the computations of
of compassion and humanitarian reason. It compensable services submitted by private
took private respondents about ten months respondents. There must be competent
before they requested for the payment of proof such as time cards or office records to
their backwages, and the long inaction of show that they actually rendered
private respondents to file their claim for compensable service during the stated
unpaid wages cast doubts as to the veracity period to entitle them to wages. It has been
of their claim. established that the petitioners business
office was transferred to Kalibo and all its
The age-old rule governing the relation equipments, records and facilities were
between labor and capital, or management transferred thereat and that it conducted its
and employee of a "fair days wage for a fair official business in Kalibo during the period
days labor" remains as the basic factor in in question. It was incumbent upon private
determining employees wages. If there is no respondents to prove that they indeed
rendered services for petitioner, which they
failed to do. It is a basic rule in evidence
that each party must prove his affirmative
allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies
with the party who asserts the affirmative
allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has
to prove his affirmative allegations in the
complaint and the defendant or the
respondent has to prove the affirmative
allegation in his affirmative defenses and
counterclaim.25cr älä wvirt u alib räry

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the

petition for CERTIORARI is GRANTED.
Consequently the decision of public
respondent NLRC dated April 20, 1995 and
the Resolution dated July 28, 1995 in NLRC
Case No. V-0143-94 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE for having been rendered
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Private
respondents complaint for payment of
unpaid wages before the Labor Arbiter is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.