6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The CA Decision In its decision of January 23, 2008, [9] the CA found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter's decision. It upheld the labor arbiter's award to Barit of salary differentials from July 23, 1999 to December 31, 2000 and unpaid salaries from January 2001 to July 23, 2001, to be paid solidarily by the agency and its foreign principal. It brushed aside Hameed's defense, through his letters dated November 15, 2003, [10] January 21, 2004 [11] and February 28, 2004, [12] that he had fully paid Barit's salaries since day one of her employment. It declared that absent any evidence, such as payrolls, payslips or acknowledgment receipts, Hameed is deemed to have failed to discharge the onus probandi of payment. Its motion for reconsideration turned down by the CA, [13] the agency now appeals to the Court by way of the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petitioner's Case Aside from the petition itself, [14] the agency submitted a memorandum, [15] as required by the Court, [16] and a reply [17] to Barit's comment. Through these submissions, the agency asks for a reversal of the CA decision on the ground that the appellate court erred in (1) affirming the labor arbiter's award to Barit of salary differentials from July 23, 1999 to December 31, 2000 despite the noninclusion of the claim for underpayment of wages in the complaint, in violation of the NLRC Rules of Procedure; and (2) disregarding the "other similar documents" the agency submitted to the labor arbiter to prove that Barit was fully paid of her wages. On the first issue, the agency cites Section 7(b) and (d), Rule V of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as follows: b) The position papers of the parties shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint or amended complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and accompanied by all supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses, which shall take the place of their direct testimony. d) In their position papers and replies, the parties shall not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts and any cause or causes of action not referred to or included in the original or amended complaint or petition. The agency argues that the labor arbiter ignored these rules when she took cognizance of Barit's claim for wage underpayment which was mentioned only in the latter's position paper. It points out that in the complaint [18] Barit filed with the NLRC, she underlined only (1) non-payment of wages and (2) refund of transportation fare as her only causes of action. It posits that the labor arbiter and the CA both erred in ignoring elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32168 3/9