GR 122409; (September, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122409 September 25, 1998
ROPALI TRADING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and WILMAR DALUPANG, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Wilmar Dalupang was hired as Branches Department Manager by petitioner Ropali Trading Corporation on January 2, 1986. On August 3, 1989, petitioner issued Memorandum No. 89-058, effective July 1, 1989, entitling private respondent to a 20% overriding commission, including sales commission and interest income on all sales he successfully obtained. Private respondent resigned on December 5, 1990, and nine months later, on September 4, 1991, he filed a complaint before the NLRC for unpaid commissions from July 1, 1989, to December 5, 1990, totaling P245,923.57. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of private respondent, ordering payment of P256,623.71 as unpaid commissions plus legal interest and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision but deleted the award of legal interest and attorney’s fees. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE
Whether private respondent had been actually paid by the petitioner his alleged commissions from July 1, 1989, to December 5, 1990.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the NLRC decision and resolution. The Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that private respondent had unpaid commissions. Petitioner presented substantial evidence of payment, including six checks encashed by private respondent upon his resignation without protest. Private respondent failed to present credible documents to substantiate his claim; his submitted sales documents were vague, unsubstantiated, and not on official stationery. In contrast, petitioner submitted its quarterly income tax returns for 1988-1990, which are public documents prima facie correct. The Court also noted private respondent’s nine-month delay in demanding payment and his behavior, which belied his claim. The NLRC gravely abused its discretion by relying on the labor arbiter’s finding without considering petitioner’s weighty evidence.