GR 92249; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92249 ; March 20, 1991
STANDARD RICE AND CORN MILL and/or AURELIO SIA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA Acting by authority of the HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, and ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU-TUCP) Acting in behalf of its eight members, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondent union filed a complaint against petitioner Standard Rice and Corn Mill for non-payment of emergency living allowance, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay on behalf of its members. The workers alleged they were made to sign blank cash vouchers upon receiving their daily wages. Initial investigation by Labor Standards and Welfare Officers found the petitioner had substantially complied with legal requirements based on employment records and cash vouchers, leading the Regional Director to dismiss the complaint. The union appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor.
The public respondent, Undersecretary Dionisio C. dela Serna, reversed the Regional Director’s order. He found the cash vouchers lacked probative value as they bore no numbers and were not approved for payment by a responsible officer, with the signature space for the respondent left blank. This circumstance was deemed to strengthen the workers’ claim that they signed blank vouchers. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the cash vouchers as indubitable proof of payment of the workers’ monetary claims.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the evaluation of evidence. The cash vouchers, containing detailed entries for salaries, allowances, and other benefits, constitute documentary evidence of payment. Their genuineness and due execution were not in question, as the workers admitted signing them and testified to the authenticity of their signatures. The Court emphasized that between the oral allegations of non-payment and the documentary evidence presented, the latter must prevail.
The irregularity cited by the public respondent—that some vouchers were unsigned by the approving officer—did not, by itself, invalidate them as proof of payment. The Court noted that if a scheme to fabricate evidence existed, all vouchers would have been properly signed. The fact that not all were signed by the owner indicated no cover-up. The self-serving claim of signing blank vouchers, unsupported by concrete evidence, cannot overcome the documentary proof. The findings of the Regional Director were supported by substantial evidence and should not have been arbitrarily reversed. Consequently, the orders of the public respondent were set aside and the Regional Director’s order dismissing the complaint was reinstated.