G.R. No. 151849; June 23, 2005
G & M (PHIL.), INC., Petitioner, vs. WILLIE BATOMALAQUE, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Willie Batomalaque was hired as a car painter in Saudi Arabia for two years through petitioner G & M (Phil.), Inc., a local recruitment agency. His contract stipulated a monthly salary of US$370.00. Batomalaque commenced work in March 1992. He claimed that for the first four months, he received only 900 Saudi riyals monthly, and from the fifth to the twelfth month, only 700 riyals, instead of the equivalent of 1,200 riyals. He further alleged an eleven-month period without work after his initial one-year stint, and that upon rehiring in 1994, his salaries for March and April were not paid, with the amount used to purchase his repatriation ticket in June 1994.
Batomalaque filed a complaint for underpayment and non-payment of salaries. The Labor Arbiter granted his claim for salary differentials for the first year but denied his claims for payment for the alleged eleven-month jobless period and for the March-April 1994 salaries, finding these unsubstantiated. The NLRC affirmed the decision. Petitioner agency appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that petitioner is solidarily liable with the foreign employer for the underpayment of Batomalaque’s salaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. The Court upheld the application of the rule that in claims for non-payment or underpayment of wages, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that wages were paid in full. This is because the employer, by the nature of its operations, is in possession of the relevant documentary evidence such as payrolls and vouchers. Petitioner agency failed to discharge this burden, merely offering a bare denial without presenting any proof of full payment.
Consequently, the Labor Arbiter correctly computed the salary differential based on Batomalaque’s credible testimony regarding the amounts actually received versus the stipulated salary. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the solidary liability of the local recruitment agency and the foreign principal. This is anchored on the principle that the agency, as the one which contracted the overseas worker, is jointly and severally liable with the foreign employer for all claims arising from the employment contract. The agency cannot evade responsibility by shifting the blame solely to the foreign principal. The findings of fact by the labor tribunals, being supported by substantial evidence, are final and binding.