4/15/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The terms and conditions of Manuel's employment contract[116] mentioned above would readily show that respondents indeed committed to give him guaranteed overtime pay for 103 hours; leave pay of seven days for each completed month in the sum of US$174.00 per month plus daily allowance/subsistence allowance of US$18 while on paid leave or a total of US$126.00 per month, as well as owner's bonus in the amount of $100.00 a month. With respect to the guaranteed overtime pay, considering that no overtime records were presented by the respondents, following Article 6.5 of the CBA, the same shall be pegged at 160 hours per month at the rate of 1.25 of Manuel's basic hourly rate. At this juncture, the Court must note that the aforesaid Articles 6 and 11 are nowhere to be found in the copy of the CBA that is attached to the records of this case. Be that as it may, the Court cannot simply disregard the same. It bears stressing that respondents were fully apprised of these claims at the outset since these claims were already included and fully discussed by the petitioner in her Position Paper.[117] Respondents, in fact, responded thereto by filing their Reply (To Complainant's Position Paper)[118] and their Rejoinder.[119] In the said pleadings, respondents never denied that the CBA as well as Manuel's Employment Contract provided for these benefits. Their defense is that they are no longer liable for these benefits since they had already been paid. As proof, they adduced the following pieces of evidence: (a) acknowledgement receipt for the payment of wages in the amount of US$670.30, duly signed by the petitioner;[120] (b) check voucher for the said amount;[121] (c) Wages Account[122] for the period covering October 1, 2013 to October 8, 2013 itemizing the benefits included in the US$670.30 payment as follows: (1) basic wage; (2) fixed overtime; (3) owner's bonus; (4) leave pay; and (5) EWA; and (d) proof of remittance of allotment to Manuel's bank account.[123] Contrary to the claim of respondents, the evidence they presented only prove payment of the aforementioned benefits from October 1 to October 8, 2013. The remittance of allotment to Manuel's bank account they made on August 6, 2013, September 6, 2013 and October 1, 2013 do not establish payment of the subject benefits as respondents failed to show what these payments had been for. If these allotments were for the guaranteed overtime pay, leave pay plus daily allowance and owner's bonus, respondents could have easily presented a similar Wages Account like the one they presented for the October 1 to 8, 2013 payment for the subject benefits considering that the Wages Account form appears to be a standard form issued by the respondents to its employees whenever they release payments to them. For these reasons, the CA erred in deleting the awards for overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance/subsistence allowance and owner's bonus. However, considering that Manuel commenced working for the respondents on June 25, 2013, and the petitioner had already received the said benefits for the period covering October 1 to October 8, 2013, respondents shall be liable for overtime pay, leave pay, daily allowance/subsistence allowance and owner's bonus for 3 months and 5 days only, instead of four months. Petitioner is not entitled to uncollected: salary, moral https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66237 28/37