Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 151849
June 23, 2005
G & M (PHIL.), INC., Petitioner,
vs.
WILLIE BATOMALAQUE, Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Culled from the records of the case are the following facts material to the appeal of petitioner.
Sometime in February 1992, Abdul Aziz Abdullah Al Muhaimid Najad Car Maintenance Association (Abdul Aziz), a Saudi Arabian entity based in
Riyadh, hired respondent, Willie Batomalaque, as a car painter at a monthly salary of US$370.001 for a two-year period2 through its agent, petitioner
G&M (Phil.), Inc.
In accordance with the employment contract, respondent started working for Abdul Aziz on March 10, 1992 3 at a monthly salary of US$370.004 which
according to him was equivalent to 1,200 Saudi riyals.5
On June 7, 19946 respondent was repatriated and on January 3, 1995 he filed a complaint 7 against petitioner, Abdul Aziz, and Country Empire
Insurance Company with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration 8for non-payment and underpayment of salaries and damages.
1av vphi1.zw+
In his Complaint-Affidavit respondent claimed that for the first four months of employment, he received a monthly salary of 900 Saudi riyals, 9 and for the
fifth month (July 1992) up to the end of the 12th month (February 1993), he received a monthly salary of 700 Saudi riyals; 10 that after a one-year stint
with Abdul Aziz, the workshop where he was working was sold but the new owner did not hire him;11 that for eleven months he was jobless;12 that Abdul
Aziz hired him again and started working for it in February 1994 for which he was paid 1,200 Saudi riyals; 13and that he resigned in May 1994 since he
was not paid his salary for the months of March and April 1994,14which 2-month salary, was, however, used to purchase his airline ticket on his
repatriation to the Philippines.
Respondent thus prayed in his Complaint-Affidavit for the award to him of damages arising from the following:
a. Non-payment of wages for 11 months from April 1993 to January 1994;
b. Non-payment of salaries for the months of March and April 1994;
c. Non-payment of salary differentials int (sic) the amount of SR500 per month for seven months deducted from his salary starting the 5th
month of his work or July 1992 up to February 1993 or the totla (sic) amount of SR3,500;
d. moral and exemplary damages of P50,000.00;
e. other just and equitable remedies are prayed for.15 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Among other claims, petitioner denied respondent’s claim that he was underpaid, it maintaining that he was paid his salaries in full.16
By Decision17 of July 22, 1996, Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco credited respondent’s complaint for underpayment of salaries during the first year
of his contract but denied his other claims in this wise:
After due consideration, this Office finds the complaint for underpayment of salaries and wages meritorious.
Well-settled is the rule that in cases of non-payment and underpayment of salaries and wages, the employer has the burden of proof to show that the
worker/employee has been paid all his salaries and wages since it has in its possession the proof of payment such as payrolls and/or vouchers
(Sambalonay vs. Jose Cuevas, NLRC No. RB IV – 186447, February 13, 1980) and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is deemed that no
payment has been made.
In the case at bar, except for their bare allegation that complainant’s salaries was not underpaid, no evidence was adduced to show that complainant’s
salaries and wages were fully paid constraining the undersigned to grant the claim of the complainant as shown in the computation below, to wit: