BISIG MANGGAGAWA SA TRYCO V. NLRC (G.R. NO.

151309)

Facts:
Tryco Pharma Corporation, manufacturer of veterinary medicines with principal office in Caloocan City, and petitioner union Bisig
Manggagawa Sa Tryco (BMT), the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees, signed separate Memoranda
of Agreement providing for a compressed workweek schedule to be implemented in the company. BMT and Tryco negotiated for the
renewal of their CBA but failed to arrive at a new agreement. Meanwhile, Tryco received a letter from the Bureau of Animal Industry
of the Department of Agriculture reminding the former that its production should be conducted in Bulacan City and not in Caloocan
City. Accordingly, Tryco issued a memo directing petitioners herein who are members of BMT to report to the plant site in Bulacan.
Contending that the transfer of its members constitutes unfair labor practice, BMT declared a strike. Later, petitioner employees filed
separate complaints for illegal dismissal and added that the transfer of petitioners to the Bulacan site is intended to paralyze the
union. LA dismissed the complaint. NLRC and CA affirmed.
Issues:
(1) Whether the transfer of petitioners amounted to constructive dismissal; and
(2) Whether the transfer of petitioners amounted to unfair labor practice.
Ruling: NO.
(1) Management’s prerogative of transferring and reassigning employees from one area of operation to another in order to meet the
requirements of the business is, therefore, generally not constitutive of constructive dismissal. Thus, the consequent transfer of
Tryco’s personnel, assigned to the Production Department was well within the scope of its management prerogative. When the
transfer is not unreasonable, or inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution
of salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal. However, the
employer has the burden of proving that the transfer of an employee is for valid and legitimate grounds.
Indisputably, in the instant case, the transfer orders do not entail a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits and other
privileges of the petitioners. The Court has previously declared that mere incidental inconvenience is not sufficient to warrant a claim
of constructive dismissal. Objection to a transfer that is grounded solely upon the personal inconvenience or hardship that will be
caused to the employee by reason of the transfer is not a valid reason to disobey an order of transfer. The distance from Caloocan
to San Rafael, Bulacan is not considerably great so as to compel petitioners to seek living accommodations in the area and prevent
them from commuting to Metro Manila daily to be with their families.
(2) We cannot see how the mere transfer of its members can paralyze the union. The union was not deprived of the membership of
the petitioners whose work assignments were only transferred to another location. More importantly, there was no showing or any
indication that the transfer orders were motivated by an intention to interfere with the petitioners’ right to organize. Unfair labor
practice refers to acts that violate the workers’ right to organize. With the exception of Article 248(f) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines, the prohibited acts are related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without that
element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are not unfair labor practices.
Charlito Peñaranda vs Baganga Plywood Corporation and Hudson Chua

489 SCRA 94 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Overtime Pay and Premium Pay of Managerial Employees
In June 1999, Peñaranda was hired by Baganga Plywood Corporation (owned by Hudson Chua) to take charge of the operations
and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. Peñaranda was employed as a Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer tasked to do the
following tasks among others:
“1. To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost.
“2. To supervise, check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories.
“3. To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower.
xxx
“5. To train new employees for effective and safety while working.
xxx
“7. To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion, or disciplinary action.
xxx
In 2001, BPC shut down due to some repairs and maintenance. BPC did not technically fire Peñaranda but due to the latter’s
insistence, BPC gave him his separation benefits.
BPC subsequently reopened but Peñaranda did not reapply.
Peñaranda now claims that BPC still needed to pay him his overtime pays and premium pays.
The NLRC ruled that Peñaranda is a managerial employee and as such he is not entitled to overtime and premium pay as stated
under the Labor Code. Peñaranda appealed. He said that he is not a managerial employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not Peñaranda is entitled to overtime and premium pay.
HELD: No. Though there is an error made by the NLRC in finding Peñaranda as a managerial employee, the Supreme Court still
ruled that Peñaranda is not entitled to overtime and premium pay.
Peñaranda is not a managerial employee. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code, managerial
employees are those that perform the following:
“(1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or
subdivision thereof;
“(2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein;
“(3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring
and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.”
Peñaranda does not meet the above requirements.
Peñaranda is instead considered as a managerial staff. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code,
managerial staffs are those that perform the following:
“(1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer;
“(2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
“(3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or
technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments
and tasks; and
“(4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely
related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.”
Peñaranda’s function as a shift engineer illustrates that he was a member of the managerial staff. His duties and responsibilities
conform to the definition of a member of a managerial staff under the Implementing Rules.
Peñaranda supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines
and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent
judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler.
Further, Peñaranda in his position paper admitted that he was a supervisor for BPC. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member
of the managerial staff.
ROYAL PLANT WORERS UNION V. COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES
Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. vs Jimmy Lebatique

515 SCRA 491 – Labor Law – Labor Standards – Abandonment – Service Incentive Leave – Field Personnel
In March 1996, Lebatique was hired as a driver by FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. with a daily wage of P223.50. His job
as a driver includes the delivery of animal feeds to the clients of the company. He must report either in the morning or in the
afternoon to make the deliveries.
On January 24, 2000, Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy (brother of FEASI’s General Manager Alexander Uy) for allegedly
using the company vehicle illegally.
On the same day, Lebatique filed a complaint for nonpayment of overtime pay against Alexander Uy.
Uy summoned Lebatique and asked why he was claiming overtime pay. Lebatique said since he started working with the company
he has never been paid OT pay. Uy consulted with his brother. On January 29, 2000, Uy told Lebatique to look for another job.
Lebatique then filed an Illegal Dismissal case against the company.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lebatique. Uy was ordered to reinstate Lebatique and at the same time to pay Lebatique his
13th month pay, back wages (time when case was pending), service incentive leave pay and OT pay – all amounting to P196,659.72.
Uy argued that Lebatique was not dismissed and that he was merely suspended; that he abandoned his job; and that Lebatique was
a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lebatique is a field personnel.
HELD: No. Lebatique is a regular employee.
Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for another job. Judging at the sequence of event, Lebatique earned the
ire of Uy when he filed a complaint for nonpayment of OT pay on the day Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is not a
valid reason for dismissing Lebatique.
Uy cannot therefore claim that he merely suspended Lebatique.
Further, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is proof enough that he had no intention to abandon his job.
To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be:
(a) absence without justifiable reason; and
(b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.
None of the above was proven by Uy.
Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the goods at a specified time and place;
(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective clients; and
(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the client’s premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to service incentive leave and OT pay.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision but remanded the case for properly computing Lebatique’s OT pay taking
in to consideration the company’s time keeping records.

Field Personnel Defined

Field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose
actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
G.R. No. L-65482 December 1, 1987

JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE WORKERS, respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, seeking the annulment of the decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission modifying the decision of the Labor Arbiter, “ that teaching personnel paid by the hour
are hereby declared to be entitled to holiday pay”
FACTS:
The factual background of this case which is undisputed is as follows:
Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. It has three
groups of employees categorized as follows: (a) personnel on monthly basis, who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout
the year, irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays; (b) personnel on daily basis
who are paid on actual days worked and they receive unworked holiday pay and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of
student contract hour. Before the start of the semester they sign contracts with the college undertaking to meet their classes as per
schedule.
Unable to receive their corresponding holiday pay, as claimed, from 1975 to 1977, private respondent National Alliance of Teachers
and Office Workers (NATOW) in behalf of the faculty and personnel of Jose Rizal College filed with the Ministry of Labor
a complaint against the college for said alleged non-payment of holiday pay. Due to the failure of the parties to settle their
differences on conciliation, the case was certified for compulsory arbitration.
After the parties had submitted their respective position papers, the Labor Arbiter ** rendered a decision: “that Collegiate faculty of
the respondent Jose Rizal College who by contract are paid compensation per student contract hour are not entitled to unworked
regular holiday pay considering that these regular holidays have been excluded in the programming of the student contact hours”.
On appeal, respondent National Labor Relations Commission in a decision , modified the decision appealed from, in the
sense that teaching personnel paid by the hour are declared to be entitled to holiday pay.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether the school faculty who according to their contracts are paid per lecture hour are entitled to unworked holiday pay.

HELD:

Subject holiday pay is provided for in the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended), which reads:
Art. 94. Right to holiday pay — (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and
service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers;
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to
twice his regular rate; … ”
and in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, Rule IV, Book III, which reads:
SEC. 8. Holiday pay of certain employees. — (a) Private school teachers, including faculty members of colleges and universities,
may not be paid for the regular holidays during semestral vacations. They shall, however, be paid for the regular holidays during
Christmas vacations. …
Under the foregoing provisions, apparently, the petitioner, although a non-profit institution is under obligation to give pay even
on unworked regular holidays to hourly paid faculty members subject to the terms and conditions provided for therein.
We believe that the aforementioned implementing rule is not justified by the provisions of the law which after all is silent
with respect to faculty members paid by the hour who because of their teaching contracts are obliged to work and consent
to be paid only for work actually done (except when an emergency or a fortuitous event or a national need calls for the
declaration of special holidays). Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no
class days;” certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and this was clearly in their minds when they entered
into the teaching contracts.
On the other hand, both the law and the Implementing Rules governing holiday pay are silent as to payment on Special Public
Holidays.
Wherefore, the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission is hereby set aside, and a new one is hereby
RENDERED:
(a) exempting petitioner from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular holidays, whether the same be during
the regular semesters of the school year or during semestral, Christmas, or Holy Week vacations;
(b) but ordering petitioner to pay said faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declared as special holidays or for
some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught, whether extensions of
class days be ordered or not; in case of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they
teach during said extensions.
FIRST VERSION

G.R. Nos. 83380-81 Case Digest

G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989

Makati Haberda Shery Inc., Jorge Ledesma and Cecilio Inocencio, petitioners
vs NLRC, etc., respondents.
Ponente: Fernan

Facts:
This is a petition assailing the decision of NLRC affirming the decision of Labor Arbiter finding Haberda guilty of illegal dismissal and
ordering him to reinstate the dismissed workers and in concluding that there is employer-employee relationship between workers
and Haberda.

The complainants were working for Haberda as tailors, seamstress, sewers, basters and plantsadoras. Paid on a piece-rate basis
with allowance when they report for work before 9:30am everyday.(MON-SAT)

July 1984, the labor organization where the complainants are members filed a complaint for underpayment of basic wage, living
allowance, non-payment of overtime work, non-payment of holiday pay, non-payment of service incentive pay ad other benefits
under wage orders.

During the pendency, Haberda dismiss the workers for the alleged job acceptance from another, which was denied by the workers
and countered by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. Which was granted by NLRC. Hence, this petition raising the issues on:

Issues: (1) employer-employee relationship? (2) workers entitled to monetary claims? (3) were respondents illegally dismissed?

Ruling:
(1) There is employer-employee relationship. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of control is
present. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner, when a customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor,
the latter directs an employee who may be a tailor, pattern maker, sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements, and
to sew the pants, coat or shirt as specified by the customer. Supervision is actively manifested in all these aspects — the manner
and quality of cutting, sewing and ironing.
(2) Because the workers were proven to be regular employees, they shall be entitled to minimum wages. Plus the respondents
didn't appealed when the Labor Arbiter granted the minimum wage award to the workers in the first place. But workers are not
entitled to incentive pay and other benefits because piece-rate workers are paid at fixed amount for performing work irrespective of
the time consumed.
(3) There was no illegal dismissal to the two workers accused of the copied Barong Tagalog design, because when they were asked
to explain to their employer, the workers did not but instead go AWOL. Imposing disciplinary sanctions upon an employee for just
and valid cause is within the rights of the employer.
SECOND VERSION!
PL MARKETING v. NLRC ET AL DIGEST

D EC EM BER 20 , 2016 ~ VBD IAZ

JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III

and FAUSTINO ANINIPOT,

G.R. No. 151966/July 8, 2005/Tinga, J.:

FACTS: JPL Marketing and Promotions (hereinafter referred to as “JPL”) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of

recruitment and placement of workers. On the other hand, private respondents Noel Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino

Aninipot were employed by JPL as merchandisers on separate dates and assigned at different establishments in Naga City and

Daet, Camarines Norte as attendants to the display of California Marketing Corporation (CMC), one of petitioner’s clients.

On 13 August 1996, JPL notified private respondents that CMC would stop its direct merchandising activity in the Bicol Region,

Isabela, and Cagayan Valley effective 15 August 1996. They were advised to wait for further notice as they would be transferred to

other clients. However, on 17 October 1996, private respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed before the NLRC complaints for illegal

dismissal, praying for separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and payment for moral damages. Aninipot filed a

similar case thereafter.

It must be noted that private respondents were not given their 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay while they were

under the employ of JPL. Instead, JPL provided salaries which were over and above the minimum wage.

ISSUE: Whether or not the 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay should be computed from the start of employment up to

the finality of the NLRC resolution.

RULING: Service incentive leave, as provided in Art. 95 of the Labor Code, is a yearly leave benefit of five (5) days with pay,

enjoyed by an employee who has rendered at least one year of service. Unless specifically excepted, all establishments are

required to grant service incentive leave to their employees. The term “at least one year of service” shall mean service within twelve

(12) months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working. The Court has held in several

instances that “service incentive leave is clearly demandable after one year of service.”
While computation for the 13th month pay should properly begin from the first day of employment, the service incentive leave pay

should start a year after commencement of service, for it is only then that the employee is entitled to said benefit. On the

other hand, the computation for both benefits should only be up to 15 August 1996, or the last day that private respondents worked

for JPL. To extend the period to the date of finality of the NLRC resolution would negate the absence of illegal dismissal, or to be

more precise, the want of dismissal in this case. Besides, it would be unfair to require JPL to pay private respondents the said

benefits beyond 15 August 1996 when they did not render any service to JPL beyond that date. These benefits are given by law on

the basis of the service actually rendered by the employee, and in the particular case of the service incentive leave, is granted as a

motivation for the employee to stay longer with the employer. There is no cause for granting said incentive to one who has already

terminated his relationship with the employer.

RODRIGUEZ v. PARK N RIDE

LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner vs PARK N RIDE INC.NICEST (PHILS) INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE &
ESTELITA B. JAVIER, Respondents

G.R. No. 222980

January 18, 2017

Facts:

Rodriguez alleged that she was employed at Sps. Javier’s numerous companies, the last being Park N Ride. Aside from that, she
also attends to incidental tasks not related to her official position, like buying household necessities for one of her bosses Estelita
Javier (Estelita). She also allegedly worked strenuous hours. She was deducted an equivalent of two (2) days' wage for every day of
absence.

In one instance, Estelita was mad at her for opening the office late and told her that if she did not want to continue with her work, the
company could manage without her. Thus, Rodriguez eventually submitted a letter expressing her gripes at the Sps. Javier to which
the latter construed and accepted as the former’s resignation.

In their Position Paper, Sps. Javier stated that they hired and trusted Rodriguez with both their businesses and personal affairs, and
this made her more senior than any of her colleagues at work. However, Rodriguez was allegedly emotionally sensitive and prone
to occasional "tampo" when she would be reprimanded or cited for tasks unaccomplished. She would then be absent after such
reprimands and would eventually return after a few days.

Rodriguez filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal, non-payment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay,
including claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Park N Ride, Vicest Phils., Grand Leisure, and the
Javier Spouses.

Issue:

WON the petitioner is constructively dismissed and is entitled to full sevice incentive, leave pay and damages.

Held:

The petition is partially granted.

Respondents are ordered to pay Rodriguez the following:

1) Service incentive leave pay for the years 1984 to 2009;

2) 13th month pay differential for the years 2006 to 2008;

3) Proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2009; and

4) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the wages awarded.

All amounts awarded shall be subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of finality of this Decision, until fully
paid.

However, the Court finds that there is constructive dismissal only when an employer's act of clear discrimination, insensibility or
disdain becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to resign from such
employment. It exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh, hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the
employer.

The affidavits of petitioner's former co-workers were mere narrations of petitioner's various duties. Far from showing the alleged
harsh treatment that petitioner suffered, the affidavits rather reveal the full trust and confidence reposed by respondents on
petitioner. Petitioner was entrusted with respondents' assets, the care and safeguarding of their house during their trips abroad,
custody of company files and papers, and delicate matters such as the release, deposit, and withdrawals of checks from their
personal accounts as well as accounts of their companies. Indeed, it was alleged that petitioner was treated by the respondents as
part of the family.

Petitioner's unequivocal intent to relinquish her position was manifest when she submitted her letters of resignation. The resignation
letters dated May 1, 2008 and March 25, 2009 contained words of gratitude, which could hardly come from an employee forced to
resign. These letters were reinforced by petitioner's very own act of not reporting for work despite respondents' directive. / bvs
G.R. No. 173648 January 16, 2012

ABDULJUAHID R. PIGCAULAN,* Petitioner,

vs.
SECURITY and CREDIT NVESTIGATION, INC. and/or RENE AMBY REYES, Respondents.
FACTS: It is not for an employee to prove non-payment of benefits to which he is entitled by law. Rather, it is on the employer that
the burden of proving payment of these claims rests.

Canoy and Pigcaulan were both employed by SCII as security guards and were assigned to SCII’s different clients. Subsequently,
however, Canoy and Pigcaulan filed with the Labor Arbiter separate complaints7 for underpayment of salaries and non-payment of
overtime, holiday, rest day, service incentive leave and 13th month pays. These complaints were later on consolidated as they
involved the same causes of action. Canoy and Pigcaulan, in support of their claim, submitted their respective daily time
records reflecting the number of hours served and their wages for the same. They likewise presented itemized lists of their
claims for the corresponding periods served.

RESPONDENT MAINTAINS: that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid their just salaries and other benefits under the law; that the
salaries they received were above the statutory minimum wage and the rates provided by the Philippine Association of Detective
and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) for security guards; that their holiday pay were already included in the computation of
their monthly salaries; that they were paid additional premium of 30% in addition to their basic salary whenever they were required
to work on Sundays and 200% of their salary for work done on holidays; and, that Canoy and Pigcaulan were paid the
corresponding 13th month pay for the years 1998 and 1999. In support thereof, copies of payroll listings8 and lists of
employees who received their 13th month pay, for the said periods.

LABOR ARBITER: (in favor of petitioner herein) held that the payroll listings presented by the respondents did not prove that
Canoy and Pigcaulan were duly paid as same were not signed by the latter or by any SCII officer. The 13th month payroll was,
however, acknowledged as sufficient proof of payment, for it bears Canoy’s and Pigcaulan’s signatures.

NLRC affirmed; CA however reversed in favor of respondent.

Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari [filed by petitioner PIGCAULAN alone]

ISSUE: WON the Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the complaint allegedly due to absence of legal and factual
[bases] despite attendance of substantial evidence in the records.
HELD: YES

There was no substantial evidence to support the grant of overtime pay.

The Labor Arbiter relied heavily on the itemized computations they submitted which he considered as representative daily time
records to substantiate the award of salary differentials. The NLRC then sustained the award on the ground that there was
substantial evidence of underpayment of salaries and benefits.

We find that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred in this regard. The handwritten itemized computations are self-
serving, unreliable and unsubstantial evidence to sustain the grant of salary differentials, particularly overtime pay.
Unsigned and unauthenticated as they are, there is no way of verifying the truth of the handwritten entries stated therein.
Written only in pieces of paper and solely prepared by Canoy and Pigcaulan, these representative daily time records, as
termed by the Labor Arbiter, can hardly be considered as competent evidence to be used as basis to prove that the two
were underpaid of their salaries.
Hence, in the absence of any concrete proof that additional service beyond the normal working hours and days had indeed been
rendered, we cannot affirm the grant of overtime pay to Pigcaulan.

However, with respect to the award for holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, we affirm and rule that
Pigcaulan is entitled to these benefits [under the Labor Code, Article 94-95].
SCII failed to show any other concrete proof by means of records, pertinent files or similar documents reflecting that the
specific claims have been paid. With respect to 13th month pay, SCII presented proof that this benefit was paid but only for the
years 1998 and 1999. To repeat, the burden of proving payment of these monetary claims rests on SCII, being the employer.
The CA erred in dismissing the claims instead of remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for a detailed computation of the judgment
award.

PETITION GRANTED. Pigcaulan is hereby declared entitled to holiday pay and service incentive leave pay for the years 1997-2000
and proportionate 13th month pay for the year 2000. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to
determine the exact amount and to make a detailed computation of the monetary benefits due