MANUEL B.

PABLICO AND MASTER'S PAB RESTO BAR, Petitioners

vs.
NUMERIANO B. CERRO, JR., MICHAEL CALIGUIRAN, EFREN PANGANIBAN,
GENIUS PAUIG, REYNALIE LIM, GLORIA NAPITAN, RICHARD CARONAN
AND MANNY BAGUNO, Respondents
(G.R. No.227200, June 10, 2019 | Ponente: REYES, A., JR., J.)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Cerro, the respondent, works as a bartender at Master's Pab Resto Bar (MPRB).On November
18, 2008, the petitioner purchased MPRB from its original owner, the Feliciano family, at the
suggestion of the former. When the petitioner took over, he gave Cerro the authority to hire additional
employees and promoted him to Officer-in-Charge on the same day with a daily wage of ₱200.00.

Respondents Caliguiran, Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan, Caronan, and Baguno received
text messages on October 18, 2011, which they interpreted to mean that they had been terminated
from work due to their close association with Cerro. The petitioner transferred Cerro to another
establishment sometime in September 2011 in response to a number of violations that resulted in
MPRB losses.

Respondents then filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
on October 24, 2011, alleging illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and benefits, damages, and
attorney's fees.

The LA denied the respondents' claim of illegal dismissal in his Decision. Regarding Cerro,
the LA determined that the employer's use of disciplinary authority as a result of the latter's violations
constitutes a valid suspension. The LA, on the other hand, decided that the other respondents failed to
meet their end of the bargain when it came to proving that they had been fired. Finally, the LA
determined that the petitioner's payrolls were sufficient proof of payment due to the respondents'
money claims.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not the respondents, Cerro and his co-workers, was illegally dismissed.

2) Whether or not Pablico, the employer, is exempt from the minimum wage law.

3) Are the respondents entitled to wage differentials?

RULING:

1) No. The suspension of Cerro is valid, and the other respondents have not been dismissed,
according to a unanimous decision by the CA and labor tribunals, it must be noted at the beginning.
The Court agrees.

Cerro admitted that he took MPRB funds without the owner's knowledge or consent, and
given his position and the fact that he did so, this act justifies the exercise of management prerogative
to place him under preventive suspension. As Officer-in-Charge of MPRB, Cerro is in charge of the
company's over-all operations and is in a position to cause damage to the employer's property.
 The Court also confirms that none of the other respondents have been dismissed. A basic
principle in cases involving illegal dismissals is that the employees must first prove that they were
fired from their employment with appropriate evidence. In this regard, a simple charge is insufficient;
there must be solid evidence of the dismissal, as well as proof that it occurred. Respondents
Caliguiran, Panganiban, Pauig, Lim, Napitan, Caronan, and Baguno in the current case failed to fulfil
this obligation. The only proof they offered were texts claiming to inform them that their employment
had been terminated. However, as stated by the tribunals below, it cannot even slightly be inferred
that they are being terminated from the language of the clause. Additionally, it was not demonstrated
that the respondents attempted to report for work but were unsuccessful. Since the employees' claim
would be "self-serving, conjectural, and of no probative value" in the absence of any showing of an
overt or positive act proving that the employees have been dismissed, the law has established that the
claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained. In a similar vein, the rule that the employer must prove
illegal dismissal does not apply in this case because the petitioner denies dismissing the respondents
and those respondents failed to demonstrate termination.

2) There is no merit to the petition. According to the Court, the petitioner simply reaffirms the
issues he brought up in his petition to the CA. The petitioner claims that because he operates a service
business with less than ten (10) employees, he is exempt from the "Minimum Wage Law's"
application. He argues that because he is a layman and cannot be expected to be informed of this
requirement, he is not qualified to benefit from the provisions of the stated law simply because his
company has not received an exemption from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
The petitioner also criticizes the NLRC for ignoring the "Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay" given
by the Guest Relations Officers/Waitresses employed by MPRB as evidence that the same people are
not its employees.

3) It is a fundamental principle of procedure that the person who asserts the truth of his assertion
bears the burden. In C. Planas Commercial v. NLRC (Second Division), the Court emphasized that to
be exempt from Republic Act (R.A.) No.6727, also known as the Wage Rationalization Act, requires
two things to be in agreement: first, that the establishment regularly employs no more than ten (10)
workers; second, that the establishment applied for and received exemption from the appropriate
Regional Board in accordance with the Commission's applicable rules and regulations.
 Yes. Under the laws then in force, employees of government-owned and/or controlled
corporations were governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code. Although in
National Housing Corporation v. Juco, it was held that employees of government-owned and/or
controlled corporations, whether created by special law or formed as subsidiaries under the general
Corporation Law, are governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code, this ruling has
been supplanted by the 1987 Constitution, which states that the civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with an original charter.

In the case of National Service Corporation (NASECO) v. National Labor Relations

Commission, it was held that the NLRC had jurisdiction over the NASECO employees since the 1987
Constitution applied at the time the case was decided. It was also held that the new phrase "with
original charter" refers to corporations chartered by special law as opposed to corporations
incorporated under the Corporation Code. Government-owned and controlled corporations are those
that are owned and controlled by the government. As a result, NASECO, which was organized in
accordance with the general incorporation statute and was a subsidiary of the National Investment
Development Corporation, which in turn was a division of the Philippine National Bank, is not
included in the Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction.

As a result, it was wrong for the NLRC to rule that the petitioner's petition was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction given that the Civil Service now only applies to organizations that are owned or
controlled by the government and have original charters. As a Corporation Law-incorporated entity,
its employment relationships are governed by the Labor Code and come under the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Commission.

One last thing, for a simple allegation of illegal dismissal, petitioners has been moved from
one forum to another. For the sake of justice, it only makes sense that we put an end to his dilemma.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC in NLRC NCR-04-02036089 dated March 14,
1991 is hereby REVERSED and the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated May 21, 1990 is
REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.