GR 155034; (May, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155034; May 22, 2008
VIRGILIO SAPIO vs. UNDALOC CONSTRUCTION AND/OR ENGR. CIRILO UNDALOC
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio Sapio was employed by respondent Undaloc Construction, a single proprietorship owned by Engr. Cirilo Undaloc, as a watchman from May 1, 1995, until his termination on May 30, 1998, on the ground of project completion. Sapio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of benefits. He asserted he was a regular employee and claimed underpayment, presenting a payroll sheet for December 1995 written in pencil to allege he was made to sign two payrolls—one reflecting his actual lower wage and another blank one.
The Labor Arbiter ruled Sapio was a project employee lawfully dismissed but awarded him a salary differential of P24,902.88 and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals deleted the award of salary differential and attorney’s fees, prompting Sapio’s petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award of salary differential and attorney’s fees to petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the procedural issue, the Court found Sapio’s claim—that respondents failed to attach certified true copies of NLRC decisions to their petition before the CA—was belatedly raised and, in any case, unsupported by the records.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the deletion of the salary differential award. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in wage claims. While the employer generally bears the burden to prove payment of wages, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of underpayment by presenting evidence, such as pay slips or testimony, showing the actual wages received were below the statutory minimum. Here, Sapio’s sole evidence for underpayment was the December 1995 pencil-written payroll, which he did not even sign. This lone, unsigned document was insufficient to discharge his initial burden of proof and establish a prima facie case, especially when countered by respondents’ typewritten and signed payrolls from later periods showing compliance with wage rates. Consequently, with no valid finding of underpayment, the award for salary differential and the dependent award for attorney’s fees were properly deleted.