G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000
Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorporated (AKELCO), petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division), Rodolfo M. Retiso and 165 Others, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves consolidated claims for unpaid wages and benefits by 166 employees of AKELCO. The dispute arose from a conflict over the legitimate workplace. In January 1992, AKELCO’s Board of Directors resolved to temporarily transfer the office from Lezo, Aklan, to Kalibo, Aklan, due to safety concerns. Subsequently, in February 1992, the Board passed another resolution withdrawing the temporary designation and ordering that daily operations be held again at the main office in Lezo. The complainants, adhering to this latter resolution, continued to report for work at the Lezo office. They were paid from January to May 1992 but were not paid from June 1992 to March 18, 1993, for their work at Lezo. AKELCO contended the employees abandoned their work and defied lawful orders by not reporting to the Kalibo office as directed by management, thus justifying the “no work, no pay” principle. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, ruling the employees were not entitled to pay for the period they did not report to the designated workplace in Kalibo.

ISSUE

Whether the employees are entitled to payment of wages for the period they reported for work at the Lezo office from June 1992 to March 1993, despite AKELCO’s directive to report to the Kalibo office.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision ordering AKELCO to pay the unpaid wages. The legal logic rests on the principle that wages are due for services actually rendered, regardless of the place of work, when such work was performed with the knowledge and acquiescence of the employer. The Court found that the employees indeed rendered services at the Lezo office during the disputed period. This was substantiated by AKELCO’s own internal documents, including a memorandum from the General Manager responding to a request for payment, which constituted an admission that services were rendered and payment was due, subject only to fund availability. AKELCO failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the employees’ alleged abandonment of work or that they performed no work at all. The directive to report to Kalibo, based on a resolution that was allegedly never implemented, did not automatically negate the fact that work was performed at Lezo. Since AKELCO failed to discharge its burden of proving that the employees did not work, the claim for unpaid wages must be granted. The constitutional mandate to protect labor and the evidentiary rule that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging a negative fact compelled this conclusion.