Zonio vs. Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc.

Unverified or uncountersigned logbook entries submitted by an employee constitute prima facie evidence of overtime work and night shift service, shifting the burden to the employer to rebut them with its own records; failure to do so gives rise to the presumption that either the employer lacks such records or their presentation would be prejudicial to its cause.

Petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio was hired on March 13, 2011 as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by respondent Romulo Q. Par. Zonio worked seven days a week on 12-hour shifts, alternating between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. every two weeks, for a monthly wage of P8,500.00. From his wage, respondents deducted P60.00 every month for a cash bond and miscellaneous fees. Respondents did not pay Zonio for overtime work, work on holidays and rest days, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, or night shift differential.

On March 13, 2011, Reggie Orbista Zonio was hired as a security guard by 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by Romulo Q. Par. Zonio was assigned to work seven days a week on 12-hour shifts, alternating every two weeks between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., for a monthly wage of P8,500.00. From his wage, respondents deducted P50.00 as cash bond and P10.00 as a miscellaneous fee every 15 days, totaling P120.00 per month. Respondents did not pay Zonio for overtime work, work rendered on holidays and rest days, 13th month pay, service incentive leave, or night shift differential.

On April 21, 2014, Zonio and several colleagues received a memorandum suspending them for 30 days, from April 21 to May 20, 2014, for sleeping while on duty. According to respondents, their inspection team caught Zonio sleeping at his post on April 20, 2014, and took photographs as proof. Respondents directed Zonio to report to the head office to explain, but Zonio disregarded the directive. No formal investigation was conducted. Zonio served the suspension and reported back to work on May 21, 2014, but respondents refused to accept him.

Zonio thereupon filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal suspension, underpayment of salary and 13th month pay, non-payment of overtime and holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential pay, reimbursement of cash bond and miscellaneous fees, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Respondents justified the suspension and contended that Zonio had been oriented as to his salary and benefits and had agreed to them, and that Wage Order No. IVA-14 provides that the minimum wage rate does not apply to persons employed in the personal service of another, such as a private security guard. Respondents also counterclaimed for attorney's fees and damages.

The Labor Arbiter found the suspension valid, crediting the photographs of Zonio sleeping on duty which Zonio did not dispute, and denied Zonio's claims for overtime, holiday pay, premiums, and night shift differentials for failure to substantiate. The Labor Arbiter nonetheless awarded salary differentials for three years counted backwards from the suspension date, 13th month pay, monetization of service incentive leave, and refund of the cash bond and miscellaneous fees. Zonio appealed to the NLRC, which modified the Labor Arbiter's decision by awarding overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which deleted those awards, finding that the photocopies of logbook entries did not prove Zonio actually rendered overtime work and that the semi-monthly payroll report did not correspond to the logbook dates. The CA further noted that Zonio failed to adduce concrete proof of service during regular holidays or between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

• Prematurity of Petition: Zonio contended that the CA erred in deleting the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials. He argued that the logbook entries, which formed the bases of his claim, contained the details of his shifts from June 2, 2012 to August 21, 2012, and that respondents did not assail the entries when first presented before the Labor Arbiter, questioning their authenticity only in their motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision.
• Failure of Respondents to Present Contradicting Records: Zonio maintained that respondents did not present their own records, such as his daily time records, to contradict his claims, and that the burden of proving payment rested on the employer.

• Premature Petition: Respondents countered that the petition was premature and must be denied because Zonio did not file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision before filing the present petition.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Respondents argued that Zonio had the burden to prove entitlement to his money claims but failed to discharge this burden, as the logbook entries were not credible since they were not countersigned by any representative of respondents. Though respondents questioned the authenticity of the logbook only before the NLRC, the NLRC was not precluded from resolving the issue, labor proceedings not being bound by technicalities of law or procedure.

• Procedural Regularity: Whether a motion for reconsideration is required before filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Review of Conflicting Findings: Whether the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of labor bodies when the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals render conflicting findings.
• Entitlement to Overtime Pay and Night Shift Differential: Whether Zonio sufficiently proved his entitlement to overtime pay and night shift differentials through unverified logbook entries.
• Entitlement to Holiday and Rest Day Premiums: Whether Zonio is entitled to holiday and rest day premium pay.

• Procedural Regularity: No. A motion for reconsideration is not a condition precedent for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the use of the word "or" in Section 2 indicating an alternative rather than a mandatory requirement.
• Review of Conflicting Findings: Yes. When the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC conflict, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine the questioned findings, the conflicting findings here justifying Supreme Court review.
• Entitlement to Overtime Pay and Night Shift Differential: Yes. Zonio's logbook entries constituted prima facie evidence of his 12-hour shifts and night shift hours, which respondents failed to rebut with their own records in their custody, giving rise to the presumption that such records were either absent or prejudicial to respondents' cause.
• Entitlement to Holiday and Rest Day Premiums: No. The logbook did not indicate whether Zonio worked on holidays or during his rest days, and thus the claim for holiday and rest day premiums lacked factual basis.

• Procedural Regularity: Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 45 govern petitions for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Section 2 states that the petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment "or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration." The use of the disjunctive "or" indicates an alternative or choice, not a mandatory sequence. A motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as distinguished in Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings Corp., but not before appealing a judgment or final order under Rule 45. The cases cited by respondents requiring a motion for reconsideration involved Rule 65 petitions, not Rule 45. Zonio's petition was therefore properly filed.

• Review of Conflicting Findings: Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence upon which labor officials' findings rest. The findings of the NLRC are generally accorded great weight, respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence. However, when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC conflict, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine the questioned findings for itself. Here, the NLRC found Zonio entitled to overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials, while the Labor Arbiter and the CA ruled otherwise. This conflict justified Supreme Court review of the factual issues.

• Entitlement to Overtime Pay and Night Shift Differential: For overtime pay, premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden rests on the employee, as these claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. Zonio submitted photocopies of logbook entries showing the dates and shifts he worked, including 12-hour shifts from 7:00 a.m./p.m. to 7:00 p.m./a.m. Although the logbook was a personal record not countersigned by respondents, the entries constituted prima facie evidence of Zonio's claim — evidence sufficient to establish the facts constituting the party's claim if not rebutted or contradicted. Respondents disputed the veracity of the entries but proffered no evidence to rebut them. The best evidence would have been payrolls, vouchers, payslips, and daily time records in respondents' custody and absolute control, but they presented none, giving rise to the presumption that either they did not have them or their presentation would be prejudicial. Respondents never denied that Zonio's normal work hours exceeded eight hours, nor claimed they did not authorize overtime. The burden of proving payment falls on the debtor, and any doubt in the evaluation of evidence between employer and employee must be resolved in favor of the latter. Zonio was therefore entitled to overtime pay for four hours per shift beyond the regular eight hours, and to night shift differential of not less than 10% of his regular wage for each hour worked between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

• Entitlement to Holiday and Rest Day Premiums: The logbook did not contain information indicating whether Zonio worked on holidays or during his rest days. Without any factual basis showing that Zonio actually rendered service on regular holidays or rest days, the claim for holiday and rest day premium pay was denied.

• Prima facie evidence in labor claims — Prima facie evidence is evidence sufficient in the judgment of the law to establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting a party's claim, which if not rebutted or contradicted will remain sufficient to sustain a judgment. Applied here: Zonio's unverified logbook entries constituted prima facie evidence of his overtime and night shift work; respondents' failure to present contradicting records from their custody meant the prima facie evidence stood unrebutted.

• Burden of proof in monetary claims — In claims for salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment, because pertinent personnel files, payrolls, and records are in the employer's custody. For overtime pay and premium pays for holidays and rest days, the burden shifts to the employee, as these claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. Applied here: Zonio bore the initial burden for overtime and night shift differential claims, but once he presented prima facie evidence through logbook entries, the burden shifted back to respondents to prove payment, which they failed to do.

• Presumption from non-production of evidence — When a party has custody and absolute control of the best evidence (payrolls, vouchers, payslips, daily time records) but fails to present it, the presumption arises that either the party does not have such records or their presentation would be prejudicial to its cause. Applied here: respondents' failure to present their own records to rebut Zonio's logbook entries triggered this presumption.

• Distinction between Rule 45 and Rule 65 on motion for reconsideration — A motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct its alleged errors, but is not required before appealing a judgment or final order under Rule 45. Applied here: Zonio's direct filing of a Rule 45 petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was proper.

• Conflicting findings of labor bodies as exception to finality — The factual findings of the NLRC are generally accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence, but when the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC conflict, the reviewing court may examine the records and review the factual issues. Applied here: the conflict between the Labor Arbiter's denial and the NLRC's award of overtime and night shift differentials justified Supreme Court factual review.

• "The use of the word 'or' indicates an alternative or choice, as opposed to being mandatory. Verily, the petitioner has an option to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or directly file an appeal or a petition for review to the appellate court without filing a motion for reconsideration." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi on the procedural issue, clarifying that Rule 45 does not require a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent, distinguishing Rule 45 from Rule 65.

• "Respondents dispute the veracity of the entries in the logbook, yet, they did not proffer evidence to rebut them, or show that they paid Zonio for the services he rendered on the dates and the hours indicated in the logbook. The best evidence for respondents would have been the payrolls, vouchers, payslips, daily time records, and the like, which are in their custody and absolute control. However, respondents did not present any of these. This failure gives rise to the presumption that either they do not have them, or if they do, their presentation is prejudicial to their cause." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the evidentiary issue, defining how unverified employee records constitute prima facie evidence and how the employer's failure to produce contradicting records triggers the presumption against it.

• "Prima facie evidence is such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group, or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient." — This passage provides the canonical definition of prima facie evidence as applied in the labor context, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on evidentiary burdens in monetary claims.

• Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Lapanday Holdings Corp., 479 Phil. 768 (2004) — Followed. Distinguished Rule 45 from Rule 65 on the necessity of a motion for reconsideration, establishing that such a motion is required for certiorari under Rule 65 but not for appeals under Rule 45.

• Paredes vs. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418 (2015) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC conflict, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine the questioned findings.

• Minsola vs. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 864 (2018) — Followed. Cited for the rule on shifting burden of proof in monetary claims: the burden rests on the employer for salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, but shifts to the employee for overtime pay and premium pays for holidays and rest days.

• Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16, 2019 — Followed. Cited for the rule that the burden of showing that an obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, and that doubt in the evaluation of evidence between employer and employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.

• Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Co. vs. Bagoy, 636 Phil. 705 (2010) — Followed. Cited alongside Lepanto for the principle that any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between employer and employee must be resolved in favor of the employee.

• Wa-acon vs. People, 539 Phil. 485 (2006) — Followed. Cited for the definition of prima facie evidence.

• The Bases Conversion and Development Authority vs. UY, 537 Phil. 18 (2006) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that Rule 45 does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of appeals through petitions for review on certiorari.

• Rule 45, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Section 2's use of "or" in stating the petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment "or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration" was interpreted as providing an alternative, not a mandatory sequence, thereby dispensing with the need for a motion for reconsideration before filing under Rule 45.

• Labor Code, Article 87 — Provides for overtime pay for work performed beyond eight hours a day. Applied to Zonio's 12-hour shifts, entitling him to overtime pay for four hours per shift beyond the regular eight hours.

• Labor Code, Article 86 — Provides for night shift differential of not less than 10% of the regular wage for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Applied to Zonio's night shifts from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., entitling him to night shift differential for the hours falling within 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, Rosario, and J. Lopez (designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021), JJ., concurred.