G.R. No. 126529 April 15, 1998
EDUARDO B. PRANGAN, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), MASAGANA SECURITY SERVICES CORPORATION, and/or VICTOR C. PADILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo B. Prangan was hired by private respondent Masagana Security Services Corporation on November 4, 1980 as a security guard and was assigned to the Cat House Bar and Restaurant until its closure on August 31, 1993. On May 4, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for various monetary claims including underpayment of wages, overtime pay, and service incentive leave pay from 1990 to 1993. Private respondent, in its defense, alleged it merely acted as an agent of the petitioner in securing his employment at the Cat House Bar and Restaurant, and thus the liability should fall on the bar and its owner as the direct employer. The Labor Arbiter rejected this contention and ordered private respondent to pay petitioner a total sum of P9,932.16 for various benefits and unpaid salary. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, contending the Labor Arbiter erred in finding he worked only four hours a day instead of twelve, which affected the monetary award. The NLRC initially dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time but later reinstated it “in the interest of justice.” Ultimately, however, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioner then filed the instant petition, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC for declaring he rendered only four hours of work and for affirming the monetary award.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioner worked only four hours a day instead of twelve, based solely on the daily time records submitted by the private respondent.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the daily time records submitted by private respondent, showing petitioner worked from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily, could not be considered substantial evidence to prove a four-hour work schedule. The Court found the records improbable as their unvarying uniformity was contrary to human experience and a badge of untruthfulness. Moreover, petitioner categorically denied ever making or submitting such daily time records, alleging they were falsified and his signature forged. Private respondent failed to present other convincing evidence such as an employment contract, payroll, or notice of assignment to substantiate its claim. In contrast, petitioner presented a personnel data sheet signed by private respondent’s operation manager indicating his hours of work were from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and attendance sheets from the Cat House Bar and Restaurant showing he worked twelve-hour shifts. Private respondent’s silence on these documents constituted an admission. Applying the principle that in doubts between the evidence of the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the laborer, the Court ruled that private respondent failed to adequately prove petitioner worked only four hours. The decision of the NLRC was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter for recomputation of petitioner’s money claims based on a twelve-hour daily work schedule.