CLARION PRINTING HOUSE, INC., and YUTINGCO vs.

NLRC and MICLAT

G.R. No. 148372

June 27, 2005

FACTS: Respondent Miclat was employed on a probationary basis as marketing assistant by petitioner
Clarion which is owned by Yutingco.

The EYCO Group of Companies of which CLARION formed part filed with the SEC a “Petition for the
Declaration of Suspension of Payment, Formation and Appointment of Rehabilitation Receiver/
Committee, Approval of Rehabilitation Plan with Alternative Prayer for Liquidation and Dissolution of
Corporation.” The SEC issued an Order approving the creation of an interim receiver for the EYCO Group
of Companies.

The Assistant Personnel Manager of CLARION informed Miclat by telephone that her employment
contract had been terminated. No reason was given for the termination.

In her Position Paper filed before the labor arbiter, Miclat claimed that assuming that her termination
was necessary, the manner in which it was carried out was illegal, no written notice thereof having been
served on her, and she merely learned of it only a day before it became effective.

On the other hand, petitioners claimed that they could not be faulted for retrenching some of its
employees including Miclat, they drawing attention to the EYCO Group of Companies’ being placed
under receivership, notice of which was sent to its supervisors and rank and file employees via a
Memorandum.

The Labor arbiter found that Miclat was illegally dismissed and directed her reinstatement. The NLRC
affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. The CA sustained the resolutions of the NLRC; it also denied
petitioner’s MR of the decision.

ISSUE: WON Miclat was illegally dismissed and is entitled for her claims.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the CA Decision, together (sustaining NLRC) is SET ASIDE and another rendered
declaring the legality of the dismissal of respondent Miclat. Petitioners are ORDERED, however, to PAY
her the following in accordance with the foregoing discussions: nominal, separation pay; and 13th
month pay. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the SEC Hearing Panel charged with the liquidation
and dissolution of petitioner corporation for inclusion, in the list of claims of its creditors, respondent
Miclat’s claims..

On Miclat’s termination:

According to P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, the appointment of a receiver or management committee by
the SEC presupposes a finding that, inter alia, a company possesses sufficient property to cover all its
debts but “foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due” and “there is
imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage or destruction of assets of other properties or paralization
of business operations.”

However, ART. 283 of the Labor Code states:

CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL. – The employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy,retrenchment
to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the
worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
thereof. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

CLARION [however] failed to comply with the notice requirement provided for in Article 283 of the
Labor Code.

Stated differently, Miclat’s termination is justified, because of financial difficulties of the company, but
failure to give the required notice by Clarion is sufficient to entitle her to payment of 13th month pay,
separation pay and others.

**

With the appointment of a management receiver, all claims and proceedings against CLARION, including
labor claims, were deemed suspended during the existence of the receivership. The labor arbiter, the
NLRC, as well as the CA should not have proceeded to resolve respondent’s complaint for illegal
dismissal and should instead have directed respondent to lodge her claim before the then duly-
appointed receiver of CLARION. To still require respondent, however, at this time to refile her labor
claim against CLARION under the peculiar circumstances of the case — that 8 years have lapsed since
her termination and that all the arguments and defenses of both parties were already ventilated before
the labor arbiter, NLRC and the CA; and that CLARION is already in the course of liquidation — this Court
deems it most expedient and advantageous for both parties that CLARION’s liability be determined with
finality, instead of still requiring respondent to lodge her claim at this time before the liquidators of
CLARION which would just entail a mere reiteration of what has been already argued and pleaded.
Furthermore, it would be in the best interest of the other creditors of CLARION that claims against the
company be finally settled and determined so as to further expedite the liquidation proceedings. For the
lesser number of claims to be proved, the sooner the claims of all creditors of CLARION are processed
and settled.
NICARIO VS. NLRC, MANCAO SUPERMARKET, INC., et al.

GR No 125340

September 17, 1998

Facts: Petitioner, Emelita Nicario, was employed with respondent company Mancao Supermarket, as a
salesgirl and was later on promoted as sales supervisor. However, private respondent terminated her
services. A complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for backwages, wage differential, service incentive
leave pay, overtime pay, 13th month pay and unpaid wages was filed by petitioner.

In her claim for payment of overtime pay, petitioner alleged that during her period of employment, she
worked twelve (12) hours a day from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., thus rendering overtime work for four
hours each day. Labor Arbiter Macaraig-Guillen, awarded overtime pay to petitioner by taking judicial
notice of the fact that all Mancao establishments open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m.. Upon appeal,
this particular finding was affirmed by the Commission. However, when private respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration, the NLRC modified its earlier ruling and deleted the award for overtime pay.
Public respondent NLRC instead gave credence to the daily time records (DTRs) presented by
respondent corporation showing that petitioner throughout her employment, worked only for eight
hours a day from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., and did not render work on her
rest days.

ISSUE: WON the evidence presented by the private respondent company is convincing.

RULING: Public respondents reliance on the daily time records submitted by private respondent is
misplaced. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General in lieu of comment, the DTRs presented by
respondent company are unreliable based on the following observations:

a) the originals thereof were not presented in evidence; petitioners allegation of forgery should have
prompted respondent to submit the same for inspection; evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse
if produced (Sec. 3(e), Rule 131, Rules of Court)

xxx xxx xxx

e) they would make it appear that petitioner has a two-hour rest period from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m., this is
highly unusual for a store establishment because employees should attend to customers almost every
minute as well as contrary to the judicial notice that no noon break is observed.

f) petitioner never reported earlier or later than 9:00 a.m., likewise she never went home earlier or later
than 8:00 pm; all entries are suspiciously consistent.

While private respondent company submitted the daily time records of the petitioner to show that she
rendered work for only eight (8) hours a day, it did not refute nor seek to disprove the judicial notice
taken by Labor Arbiter Macaraig-Guillen that Mancao establishments, including the establishment
where petitioner worked, opens twelve hours a day, opening at 8:00 a.m. and closing at 8:00 p.m.
This Court, in previously evaluating the evidentiary value of daily time records, especially those which
show uniform entries with regard to the hours of work rendered by an employee, has ruled that such
unvarying recording of a daily time record is improbable and contrary to human experience. It is
impossible for an employee to arrive at the workplace and leave at exactly the same time, day in day
out. The uniformity and regularity of the entries are badges of untruthfulness and as such indices of
dubiety. The observations made by the Solicitor General regarding the unreliability of the daily time
records would therefore seem more convincing. On the other hand, respondent company failed to
present substantial evidence, other than the disputed DTRs, to prove that petitioner indeed worked for
only eight hours a day.

It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and
the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time-honored rule that in
controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the
interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the formers favor. The policy is to extend
the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in
consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor. This rule
should be applied in the case at bar, especially since the evidence presented by the private respondent
company is not convincing. Accordingly, we uphold the finding that petitioner rendered overtime work,
entitling her to overtime pay.