3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 224944, May 05, 2021 ]

REGGIE ORBISTA ZONIO, PETITIONER, VS. 1ST QUANTUM

LEAP SECURITY AGENCY, INC. AND ROMULO Q. PAR,
RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
LOPEZ, M., J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is
the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 141856 dated May 31,
2016, which deleted the award of overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day premium
pay, and night shift differentials in favor of petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio (Zonio).

ANTECEDENTS

In his Position Paper[3] filed before the Labor Arbiter, Department of Labor and
Employment, Zonio alleged that on March 13, 2011, he was hired as a security guard by
1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., owned and managed by respondent Romulo Q.
Par (collectively, respondents). Zonio worked seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., or from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., alternately every two weeks, for a monthly wage of
P8,500.00. From his wage, a cash bond of P50.00 and P10.00 miscellaneous fee, or a total
of P60.00 were deducted every 15 days, or a total of P120.00 every month. Respondents
did not pay him for overtime work, work rendered on holidays and rest days, as well as
13th month pay, service incentive leave, and night shift differential.

On April 21, 2014, Zonio, along with some of his colleagues, received a memorandum
suspending them from April 21, 2014 to May 20, 2014, for sleeping while on duty. There
was no formal investigation conducted. Nonetheless, Zonio served the suspension and
reported back to work on May 21, 2014. Respondents, however, refused to accept him.

Thus, Zonio filed a complaint[4] against respondents for illegal suspension underpayment
of salary and 13th month pay; non-payment of overtime and holiday pay; holiday and rest
day premiums pay; service incentive leave pay; night shift differential pay; reimbursement
of cash bond and miscellaneous fees; moral and exemplary damages; and attorney's fees.
[5]

For its part, respondents justified Zonio's suspension when its inspection team caught

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 1/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

Zonio sleeping in his post on April 20, 2014, and took photographs[6] of him as proof
Respondents directed Zonio to report to the head office to explain, but Zonio disregarded
the directive. Thus, in a memorandum dated April 21, 2014,[7] respondents suspended him
for 30 days, effective April 21, 2014, until May 20, 2014. As to Zonio's money claims, he
was oriented as to the salary and benefits to which he is entitled, and he agreed to it.
Moreover, 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
like Zonio. Lastly, respondents claimed attorney's fees, and moral and exemplary damages
for the besmirched goodwill and reputation that the company suffered by reason of the
filing of the complaint.[8]

In a Decision[9] dated February 26, 2015, Labor Arbiter Joel A. Allones ruled that Zonio
was validly suspended for sleeping in his post as proved by photographs, which Zonio did
not dispute. Moreover, Zonio failed to substantiate his claim for payment of overtime and
holiday pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay. Even so,
Zonio is entitled to salary differentials for a period of three years counted backwards from
the date of his suspension on April 21, 2014; as well as to 13th month pay; the
monetization of his service incentive leave, and the refund of the cash bond and
miscellaneous fees that were deducted from his salary.

Zonio appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the ground that
the Labor Arbiter erred in ruling that he is not entitled to the payment of overtime and
holiday pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay; night shift differentials pay; and in
adopting the computation of Ms. Rachel Z. Averia who failed to include the refund of the
cash bond and miscellaneous fees.[10]

In a Decision dated May 29, 2015,[11] the NLRC modified the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter and ruled that Zonio is entitled to overtime and holiday pay; holiday and rest day
premiums pay; and night shift differentials pay.

Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to question the award of overtime
and holiday pay, holiday and rest day premiums, and night shift differentials pay in favor
of Zonio, and the NLRC's failure to award damages and attorney's fees in their favor.

In the assailed Decision[12] dated May 31, 2016, the CA partly granted the petition by
deleting the award of overtime pay, holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift
differentials pay.[13] The CA ratiocinated as follows:

Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said

overtime work was actually performed, before an employee may avail of said
benefit. The same is likewise true for premium pay for holidays and rest days
because these benefits are not incurred in the normal course of business. To
support his allegations. [Zonio] submitted in evidence photocopies of the
entries in the logbook dated 02 June 2012 until 21 August 2012 and semi-
monthly payroll report for the period 01 June to 15 June 2013.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 2/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

However, the photocopies of entries in the logbook do not prove that, indeed,
[Zonio] rendered overtime work beyond the normal work hours from 02 June
2012 until 21 August 2012. Rather, the entries were made by [Zonio] and other
security guards themselves. Although these entries were signed by incoming
and outgoing security guards. the same were not countersigned by their
supervisor or any authorized representative from the place where they were
designated. As such, it raises serious doubt as to whether [Zonio] actually
rendered work on a given date and time.

Moreover, the semi-monthly payroll report presented by [Zonio] indicated that

it only covered the period of 01 June to 15 June 2013 as opposed to the entries
in the logbook which were all dated 2012. In other words, the payroll report
submitted by [Zonio] does not clearly reflect that he performed overtime work
during the period of 02 June 2012 until 21 August 2012 as indicated in the
photocopies of the entries in the logbook.

(Zonio] likewise failed to adduce concrete proof showing that he had rendered
service during regular holidays or that he had rendered service between 10:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m., so as to entitle him to premium pays and night shift
differential. Thus, We find that the NLRC gravely erred in awarding him said
benefits.[14] (Citation omitted.)

In this petition, Zonio contends that the CA erred in deleting the award of overtime pay,
holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night shift differentials pay. The entries in the
logbook, which are the bases of Zonio's claim, contained the details of Zonio's shifts from
June 2, 2012 to August 21, 2012. Respondents did not assai1 the entries in the logbook
when Zonio first presented it before the Labor Arbiter. It is only in respondents' motion for
reconsideration of the NLRC Decision that they questioned it. However, respondents did
not present their own records, such as Zonio's daily time records, to contradict Zonio's
claims.

In their comment,[15] respondents countered that the petition is premature and must be
denied because Zonio did not file a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision before
filing the present petition. In any case, Zonio has the burden to prove entitlement to his
money claims, but he failed to discharge this burden. The entries in the logbook are not
credible since these were not countersigned by any representative of the respondents.
Though respondents questioned the authenticity of the logbook only before the NLRC, the
NLRC is not precluded from resolving the issue, considering that labor proceedings are
not bound by technicalities of law or procedure.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious.

A motion for
reconsideration is
not required for the
filing of a petition
for review on
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 3/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

certiorari under
Rule 45.

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration
for this Court to take cognizance of appeals through petitions for review on certiorari.[16]
Sections 1 and 2 of this Rule pertinently provide:

SEC. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by

certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals,
the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever
authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must
be distinctly set forth.

SEC. 2. Time for filing; extension. - The petition shall be filed within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed
from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly
filed and served, with full payment x x x. (Emphases supplied.)

These provisions clearly do not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a
condition precedent. Section 2 states that "the petition shall be filed x x x from notice of
judgment x x x appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration x x x." 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, as what Zonio did.

Meanwhile, the cases[17] cited by respondents that emphasize the necessity of a motion for
reconsideration involve a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and not a petition for
review under Rule 45. Corollarily, one of the distinctions between Rule 45 and Rule 65
lies on the necessity of a motion for reconsideration. Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday
Holdings Corp.[18] distinguished the two actions on this regard:

As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration

is generally required prior to the filing of a petition for certiorari, in order to
afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that
this motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law.
Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment or final order.[19]
(Citation omitted.)

Thus, Zonio's petition was properly filed.

The factual findings

of administrative
bodies are
accorded great
weight and respect
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 4/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

and even finality by

this Court, except
when their findings
conflict with that of
the appellate court.

Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the
evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest. As such, the findings of facts and
conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even
clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by
substantial evidence. However, if the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
are conflicting, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the
questioned findings.[20] In this case, the findings of the NLRC as to Zonio's money claims
are in conflict with the Labor Arbiter and the CA. While the NLRC found that Zonio is
entitled to the payment of overtime pay; holiday and rest day premiums pay, and night
shift differentials pay, the Labor Arbiter and the CA ruled otherwise. Accordingly, the
conflicting findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA, justify this Court to
review the factual issues raised by Zonio.

Zonio proved his

entitlement to
monetary claims.

In determining the employee's entitlement to monetary claims, the burden of proof is

shifted from the employer or the employee, depending on the monetary claim sought.[21]
In claims for payment of salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th
month pay, the burden rests on the employer to prove payment. This standard follows the
basic rule that in all illegal dismissal cases the burden rests on the defendant-employer to
prove payment rather than on the plaintiff-employee to prove non-payment. This likewise
stems from the fact that all pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and
other similar documents - which show that the differentials, service incentive leave and
other claims of workers have been paid - are not in the possession of the worker but are in
the custody and control of the employer.[22] On the other hand, for overtime pay, premium
pays for holidays and rest days, the burden is shifted on the employee, as these monetary
claims are not incurred in the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon the
employee to first prove that he actually rendered service in excess of the regular eight
working hours a day, and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days.[23]

Here, to prove his entitlement to the payment of overtime pay; holiday and rest day
premiums pay; and night shift differentials pay, Zonio submitted a photocopy of the
logbook entries which showed the dates and shift when he reported for work, as well as
the specific tasks he performed on that particular work shift. The logbook also contains the
same information with regard to other security guards. Before and after each particular
work shift, the incoming and outgoing security guard will sign the corresponding entry in
the logbook. However, the logbook does not contain whether Zonio worked on holidays or
during his rest days. Thus, Zonio's claim for holiday and rest day premiums is denied for
lack of factual basis. Meanwhile, the entries in the logbook showed that Zonio worked 12-
hour shifts, which ran from 7:00 a.m./p.m. to 7:00 p.m./a.m. Thus, he is entitled to
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 5/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

overtime pay for work performed beyond eight hours a day,[24] or four hours for every
shift. Likewise, Zonio is entitled to night-shift differential for each hour of work
performed between 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Based on the logbook, Zonio rendered services
on the following dates:

June 2, 2012 (1900H-0700H)[25]

July 4, 2012 (1900H-0700H) - July 13, 2012 (1900H-0700H)[26]
July 18, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[27]
July 20, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - July 21, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[28]
July 23, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[29]
July 25, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - July 28, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[30]
July 30, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[31]
August 18, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[32]
August 20, 2012 (0700H-1900H) - August 22, 2012 (0700H-1900H)[33]

Admittedly, the logbook is only a personal record of Zonio and other security guards. It is
not verified or countersigned by respondents. Anyway, the fact that the entries are not
verified or countersigned will not militate against Zonio. The entries in the logbook are
prima facie evidence of Zonio's claim. 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. Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
sustain a judgment in favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by
other evidence.[34] 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.[35] Moreover, respondents
never denied that Zonio's normal work hours is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or 7:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m., which is in excess of the regular eight working hours a day. Neither did respondents
claim that they did not authorize Zonio to render overtime work. In this regard, we have
already ruled that the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the rule that one who
pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[36] Any doubt arising from the evaluation of
evidence as between the employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the
latter.[37]

Accordingly, Zonio should be paid for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours on the
following dates:

Hours of Overtime
Inclusive Dates Hours Worked Number of Days
per Day
June 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 4
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 6/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

July 4-13, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 10 4

July 18, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4
July 20-21, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 2 4
July 23, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4
July 25-28, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 4 4
July 30, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4
August 18, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 1 4
August 20-22, 2012 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m 3 4

Anent night shift differentials, Zonio is entitled to not less than 10% of his regular wage
for each hour of work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.[38] for the following
hours and dates:

Hours Covered by
Inclusive Dates Hours Worked Number of Days Night-Shift
Differential per Day
June 2, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 1 8
July 4-13, 2012 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 10 8

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141856 dated May 31, 2016 is MODIFIED in that
petitioner Reggie Orbista Zonio is entitled to the payment of overtime pay, and night shift
differentials pay. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of
Zonio's monetary award in accordance with this Court's ruling. The total monetary award
computed shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this
Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, Rosario, and J. Lopez,* JJ., concur.

* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.

[1] Rollo, pp. 11-27.

[2] Id. at 32-43; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member
of this Court).

[3] Id. at 84-95.

[4] Rollo, pp. 81-83.

[5] Id. at 84-95. Zonio's Position Paper.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 7/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[6] Id. at 202.

[7] Id. at 203.

[8] Id. at 184-192. Respondents' Position Paper.

[9] Id. at 209-215.

[10] Id. at 218-227. Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Partial Appeal.

[11] Id. at 64-69.

[12] Supra note 2.

[13] Supra at 40. The dispositive portion of the Decision, reads:

FOR THESE REASONS, the instant petition is hereby PARTLY

GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated 29 May 2015 and 22
June 2015, respectively, by the Third Division of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC No. 04-001127115 (NLRC NCR Case
No. 05-05898-14) are hereby AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION
that the award of overtime pay, holiday premium pay, rest day premium pay,
and night shift differentials are hereby DELETED.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.

[14] Rollo, pp. 39-40.

[15] Id. at 280-293.

[16] The Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. UY, 537 Phil. 18, 27 (2006).

[17]Castro v. Sps. Guevarra, 686 Phil. 1125 (2012); PNOC v. NLRC, 342 Phil. 769 (1197);
Sps. Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, 680 Phil. 334 (2012).

[18] 479 Phil. 768 (2004).

[19] Id. at 782.

[20] Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418 (2015).

[21] Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 824 Phil. 864, 879 (2018).
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 8/9
3/26/24, 8:03 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 880, emphasis supplied and citation omitted.

[24] LABOR CODE, Art. 87.

[25] Rollo, p. 99.

[26] Id. at 102-115.

[27] Id. at 121.

[28] Id. at 123-124.

[29] Id. at 127.

[30] Id. at 129-133.

[31] Id. at 135.

[32] Id. at 169.

[33] Id. at 172-174.

[34] Wa-acon v. People, 539 Phil. 485-494 (2006).

[35]Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 225725, January 16,
2019.

[36] Id.

[37]Id.; Dansart Security Force & Allied Services Co. v. Bagoy, 636 Phil. 705, 710-711
(2010).

[38] LABOR CODE, Art. 86.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/67426 9/9