any complaint about the non-payment of his tips during the entire duration of his
employment. After the expiration of his contract, he demanded payment only of
his vacation leave pay. He did not immediately seek the payment of tips. He
only asked for the payment of tips when he filed this case before the labor
arbiter. This shows that the alleged non-payment of tips was a mere
afterthought to bloat up his claim. The records of the case do not show that
Orlando was deprived of any monthly salary. It will now be unjust to impose a
burden on the employer who performed the contract in good faith.
Furthermore, it is presumed that the parties were aware of the plain,
ordinary and common meaning of the word "tip." As a bartender, Orlando can
not feign ignorance on the practice of tipping and that tips are normally paid by
customers and not by the employer.
It is also absurd that petitioners intended to give Orlando a salary higher
than that of the ship captain. As petitioners point out, the captain of M/V "Orient
Princess" receives US$3,000.00 per month while Orlando will receive
US$3,450.00 per month if the tip of US$2.00 per passenger per day will be
given in addition to his US$450.00 monthly salary. It will be against common
sense for an employer to give a lower ranked employee a higher compensation
than an employee who holds the highest position in an enterprise.
However, Orlando should be paid his vacation leave pay. Petitioners denied
this liability by raising the defense that the usual practice is that vacation leave
pay is given before repatriation. But as the labor arbiter correctly observed,
petitioners did not present any evidence to prove that they already paid the
amount. The burden of proving payment was not discharged by the petitioners.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP
No. 53508 are reversed and set aside. The decision of the labor arbiter ordering
petitioners to pay jointly and severally the unpaid vacation leave pay of private
respondent, Orlando Alonsagay, in the amount of US$450.00 and dismissing
his other claim for lack of merit is reinstated.
SO ORDERED.
Davide,
JJ., concur.
[1]
Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman),
Kapunan,
Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago,
CA G.R. SP No. 53508 dated July 28 ,1999 and October 8, 1999.
Thirteenth Division.
[3]
NLRC Case No. NCR-00-11-00760-95.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 163-164.
[5]
Ibid., pp. 47-48.
[6]
NLRC NCR CA No. 012362-9.
[7]
First Division. Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Commissioner Alberto R.
Quimpo.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 69-70.
[2]