E.G & I. Construction Corporation v. Sato

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated October 24, 2007 and the Resolution2 dated March 3, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02316. The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows: Respondent Ananias P. Sato (Sato) was hired in October 1990 by petitioner E.G. & I. Construction Corporation as a grader operator, which is considered as technical labor. He held the position for more than thirteen (13) years.

In April 2004, Sato discovered that petitioner corporation had not been remitting his premium contributions to the Social Security System (SSS). When Sato kept on telling petitioners to update his premium contributions, he was removed as a grader operator and made to perform manual labor, such as tilling the land in a private cemetery and/or digging earthworks in petitioner corporation's construction projects.3 In July 2004, an inspection team from the SSS went to petitioner corporation's office to check its compliance with the SSS law. On July 22, 2004, petitioners told Sato that they could no longer afford to pay his wages, and he was advised to look for employment in other construction companies.4 Sato, however, found difficulty in finding a job because he had been blacklisted in other construction companies and was prevented from entering the project sites of petitioners.5 Respondent Nilo Berdin (Berdin) was hired by petitioners in March 1991 as a steelman/laborer; respondent Anecito S. Parantar, Sr.6 (Parantar) was hired in February 1997 as a steelman; and respondent Romeo M. Lacida, Jr.7 (Lacida) was hired in March 2001 as a laborer.8 At the start of their employment, they were required by petitioners to sign several documents purporting to be employment contracts.9 They immediately signed the documents without verifying their contents for fear of forfeiting their employment.10 Respondents were required to work from 7:00 a.m.

until 5:00 p.m. While in the employ of petitioners, they devoted their time exclusively in the service of petitioners and were assigned to various construction projects of petitioners. They were tasked to set up steel bars used in the building foundation, to mix cement, and to perform other tasks required of them by petitioners.11 On July 24, 2004, the project engineer of respondents Berdin, Parantar, and Lacida instructed them to affix their signatures on various documents.

They refused to sign the documents because they were written in English, a language that they did not understand. Irked by their disobedience, the project engineer terminated their employment. On the same date, they were given their weekly wages.

However, the wages that were paid to them were short of three (3) days worth of wages, as penalty for their refusal to sign the documents. The following day, they were not allowed to enter the work premises.12 On July 26, 2004, respondents filed their respective complaints with the Regional Arbitration Branch of Cebu City for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages (wage differentials), holiday pay, thirteenth (13th) month pay, and service incentive leave pay.13 Petitioners, on the other hand, admitted that respondents were employed by them and were assigned in their various construction projects. However, they denied that they illegally terminated respondents' employment.

According to petitioners, respondents abandoned their work when they failed to report for work starting on July 22, 2004.

Petitioner corporation sent letters advising respondents to report for work, but they refused. Petitioner corporation maintained that respondents are still welcome, if they desire to work.14 As to respondent Sato, petitioner corporation alleged that it admonished respondent for having an illicit affair with another woman; that, in retaliation, Sato complained to the SSS for alleged non-remittance of his premium contributions; that Sato's work was substandard; and that he also incurred unexplained absences and was constantly reprimanded for habitual tardiness. On July 27, 2005, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision15 finding that respondents were illegally dismissed from employment.

In lieu of reinstatement, due to the strained relations of the parties and as prayed for by respondents, each of them was granted separation pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. The Labor Arbiter likewise awarded respondents' claim for wage differentials, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and service incentive leave pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of granting the monetary claims of respondents because of petitioner corporation's failure to effectively controvert the said claims by not presenting proof of payment, such as payrolls or vouchers.16 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent [petitioner] E.G. & I. Construction Corporation to pay [respondents] the following: 1. Ananias P. Sato - ₱ 107,250.00 2. Anecito Parantar - 120,944.00 3. Nilo Berdin - 152,144.00 4. Romeo M. Lacida, Jr. - 138,594.00 Total Award -