[170] Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v.
Maximo Mamaril ● Burden to prove payment of monetary claims rests upon employer since the
GR No. 225725 | Jan 16, 2019 | J. Carpio
PETITIONER: LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY
RESPONDENTS: MAXIMO C. MAMARIL, EDUARDO C. FONTIVEROS, RICHARD
PADONG, SHARWIN ESPIQUE, CLARITO ALBING, BALUDOY TOTANES,
GERRY OLANIO, JOSEPH DUMANGENG, REYNALD MANUIT, NARDO SINGIT,
MICHAEL PANGDA, BENJAMIN ASIDERA, ALVARO PATAGUE, JR., ANGELITO
NAYRE, JR., JOSE MOJICA, AND JOEL SILARAN
SUMMARY
This case is a consolidation of three different cases with two main issues.
First issue: Mamaril was a guard who worked for Lepanto. Lepanto received reports
that a plan to pilfer company properties was about to take place so they positioned
two other guards as a look out outside the company gate. The two guards witnessed
the theft taking place and apprehended one of the company employees for stealing
copper wires. They also apprehended Mamaril for allegedly conspiring with the thief
by opening the gates (he was assigned to the gate where the theft took place). The
Court held that Mamaril was illegally dismissed. SC agreed with the NLRC and CA
finding that the testimony of the witnesses who allegedly saw Mamaril’s involvement
of the theft cannot be given consideration. It was impossible for the two other guards
to have seen Mamaril open the gate for the thief because the place was dark and
poorly lit and the witnesses were too far away to have recognized Mamaril. Also,
Mamaril was able to provide an alibi, which was supported by some co-workers that
he was patrolling another area during the time the theft was taking place.
Second issue: This involves the two other cases where respondents filed a complaint
for money claims against Lepanto. Respondents are members of the Security
Reaction Force (SRF), a team of security guards, which included Mamaril, tasked to
do special security duties. They were required to be on-duty/on-call for 24hrs a day,
7 days a week. They were rarely allowed to go home and were also tasked to do
other kinds of work. When employees of the company went on strike, the SRF were
on-duty around the clock. They filed a complaint before the NLRC claiming that
Lepanto did not pay them for work performed during overtime, holidays, and rest
days. The Court ruled in favor of respondents and held that it was sufficiently proven
that the respondents worked around the clock during the strike. Petitioner failed to
discharge the burden of proving that it duly compensated its workers considering it
possessed the necessary documents to prove the same. Its failure to provide proof
creates the presumption that such proof would be prejudicial to it. Hence, the Court
affirms the CA and NLRC decision granting money claims filed by respondents.
DOCTRINE/PROVISION
Any doubt arising from the evidence between the employer and employee must be
resolved in favor of the latter.
necessary documents to prove the payment is in the custody of the
employer
● For failure to provide proof, there arises a presumption that such evidence,
if presented, would be prejudicial to it.
FACTS
First issue
● Respondent Mamaril was hired by Petitioner Lepanto as a security guard
● 8 Oct 2006 - After receiving information that a plan to pilfer company
properties was about to take place, the company instructed two other
security guards (Bangkilas and Velasco) to do surveillance work
○ At around 7PM, Bangkilas and Velasco were positioned around
40m outside the company gate
○ They eventually saw a person exit the door by the gate.
○ Minutes later, they saw a tricycle with two passengers arrive.
○ They claimed that they saw Mamaril open the door. After which,
they saw someone loading something into the tricycle
○ Bangkilas and Velasco came out from hiding to intercept and
chase the tricycle
○ They caught the tricycle and identified the passenger as Sumibang
(a company employee) while Mendoza was the driver
○ They apprehended Sumibang for stealing skinned copper wires.
○ They also apprehended Mamaril, who was the guard on duty at
that time, for allegedly conspiring with Sumibang
● 16 Oct 2006 - During the formal hearing, Mamaril stated that he was the
guard assigned to the gate at the time of the incident. He was assigned to
guard not only the gate but also to patrol and inspect the adjacent buildings.
○ He denied involvement or conspiracy with Sumibang regarding the
alleged qualified theft.
○ He claimed that he was on roving patrol at the time of the incident.
○ And that about past 7PM, he opened the door to allow Foreman
Mangiga to exit the premises
○ Afterwards, NPC Security Guard Macaraeg arrived and together
they conducted a roving inspection of their assigned area.
○ Mamaril admitted that he left the man door hooked on its barrel
bolt but did not padlock it since there were employees who were
still underground at that time who might come out at any time
○ At one point, Mamaril heard somebody blow a whistle. He went to
his post and saw some security men headed by Security Guard
Fagela. He unhooked the barrel bolt of the door and allowed them
to enter.
 ○ Mamaril stated that his only fault, if any, was that he forgot to
secure the man door. Padlocking the man door is a standard
operating procedure of the company if the man door is not in use.
○ Mamaril submitted the sworn affidavits of witnesses who all saw
him on roving patrol, while the theft was taking place.
● After investigation, Lepanto submitted a Resolution finding Mamaril guilty of
qualified theft for conspiring with Sumibang in pilfering skinned copper
wires. Lepanto dismissed Mamaril from employment for dishonesty and
breach of trust and confidence.
● 21 Nov 2006 - Mamaril filed a complaint against Lepanto with the NLRC
Regional Arbitration Branch - CAR for illegal dismissal with claims for
payment of his full backwages or in lieu thereof, payment of separation pay,
overtime pay, rest day pay, damages, and atty’s fees
2nd issue
● Mamaril was also assigned to the Security Reaction Force (SRF) which was
tasked to do special duties
○ The SRF was created by retired Col. Doromal, Lepanto's Security
Superintendent and Security and Communication Services
Department Head
○ SRF was composed of 14 members, who all used to be part of the
military.
● Due to the SRF's small number and highly sensitive and critical duties, the
members were required to be on duty and on call for 24 hrs a day, seven
days a week.
○ They were posted alternately to sensitive postings and were not
allowed to go home except for their rest day.
○ When not on duty, the SRF members were required to stay at their
resting quarters of the SRF, and were on call
○ As compensation, the SRF members received free rice supply and
housing, an additional rate of P20 to their daily rate, and overtime
pay equivalent to one hour of overtime work.
○ They were assigned to different posts daily for 8hr shifts
○ Twice a week they would secure the airstrip during the arrival and
departure of the company plane
○ When not on duty, they would rest at their quarters but were still
on call
○ Also, their movements were limited within company premises and
they were not allowed to go home except on their scheduled rest
days.
● 22 Jan 2007 - several security guards of Lepanto and members of the SRF
also filed a complaint for payment of overtime pay, rest day pay, night shift
differentials, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
○ The basis of their complaint revolved on the 3 month strike made
by members of the Lepanto Employees Union. During this period,
the members of the SRF were ordered to be on duty around the
clock, rendered overtime work, and were on call, even on holidays
and rest days.
● 30 April 2007 - more aggrieved members of the SRF filed another complaint
against Lepanto for payment of overtime pay, damages, and attorney's
fees.
● 21 May 2007 - SRF was abolished and deactivated by Lepanto
● The three cases were consolidated
● LA ruled in favor of Lepanto: Mamaril was legally dismissed from work. Also,
as to the money claims, LA said that respondents did not specify the dates,
months, years that they rendered overtime services, as well as extra work
hours during their holidays and rest days.
● Upon appeal, NLRC modified the LA decision. Mamaril was illegally
dismissed. Impossible for Mamaril to have been identified as the one who
opened the door during the theft because the place was dark and the
witnesses (Bangkilas and Belasco) were too far away from the gate. Also,
no reason to doubt his alibi that he was on roving duty at the time.
○ Mamaril is entitled to separation pay and full backwages.
● As to the other respondents, NLRC found that they failed to provide
sufficient evidence to support their claims.
● Upon motion for reconsideration, NLRC granted and ordered Lepanto to
pay them overtime pay, holiday pay, and rest day pay
● CA affirmed the NLRC decision. Motion for recon was denied
● Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
● W/N the CA erred in holding that Mamaril was illegally dismissed by Lepanto
and should thus be entitled to separation pay and full backwages
● W/N Mamaril and other respondents are entitled to be compensated for
work rendered on overtime, holiday, and rest days.
HELD/ RATIO
● The CA did not err in its decision. Mamaril was illegally dismissed. He
and other respondents are entitled to be compensated for work
rendered on overtime, holiday, and rest days.
Mamaril was illegally dismissed
 ● Lepanto dismissed Mamaril based on loss of trust and confidence. To be a
valid ground for dismissal, the loss of trust and confidence must be
based on a willful breach and founded on clearly established facts.
● Lepanto asserts that as a member of the SRF, Mamaril was not an ordinary
security guard but an in-house security officer privy to the workings of
management, and thus, held a position of trust.
○ However, records show that at the time of the theft, Mamaril was
no longer a member of the SRF but was assigned to regular
surface duty.
○ But even if he was occupying a position of trust as an ordinary
security guard, his termination can only be valid if the act or acts
constituting a breach of trust must have been done intentionally,
knowingly, and purposely; and they must be founded on clearly
established facts.
● Court agrees with the NLRC and the CA that the reports and affidavits of
the witnesses cannot be believed as an accurate account of the incident
○ The incident occurred at night and the place was poorly lit
○ The witnesses were at a considerable distance from the gate
○ Breach of trust was not shown to have been done intentionally,
knowingly, or purposely
● Lepanto merely assumed that Sumibang conspired with Mamaril
○ No admission from Sumibang and his companion that Mamaril
assisted them in any way to carry out their plan
○ No evidence to corroborate what the witnesses (Bangkilas and
Velasco) allegedly saw
○ Conspiracy cannot be presumed but must be proven based on
sufficient evidence.
● Mamaril's admission that he did not lock properly the man door before he
went on his roving patrol does not also amount to a breach of trust
○ Such breach, to be a ground for termination, must be willful. That
is, it must be done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
● Thus, based on the findings of the NLRC and the CA, we find that Mamaril
was dismissed without a just and valid cause and is thus entitled to be paid
separation pay and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other
benefits.
Respondents are entitled to be compensated for work rendered on overtime,
holiday, and rest days
● Court sees no reason to overturn ruling of NLRC and CA awarding overtime
pay, holiday pay, and rest day pay to other respondents
○ Col. Doromal, Head of Security, clearly testified that during the
strike, complainants were tasked to deliver food and other
necessary supplies that would provide continuous mining
operation; they were also tasked to escort the tankers and cargo
trucks to penetrate the strike area, assist the army in the conduct
of the security patrol in the Lepanto area, secure VIPs going in and
out of Lepanto, and secure the gold bullion from the refinery to the
airport.
○ Also, Col. Doromal admitted that the members of the SRF were
not allowed to go home during rest days and were required to be
on duty/ on call for 24hrs
○ Lepanto also attested that the members of the SRF performed
their tasks during the strike
● Complainants, nevertheless, admitted that they were only paid for an hour's
overtime work per day.
○ No reason to doubt these claims of complainants, especially with
respondent’s failure to present evidence to disprove the veracity
of the said statements.
■ Lepanto can’t claim that the overtime work was not
approved because Col. Doromal admitted during cross-
examination that there was a verbal instruction from the
resident manager to give such orders
○ SRF’s work was necessary for the company during the strike,
Lepanto can’t disregard their services
● CA also said that it is uncontroverted that at the time of the strike, members
of the SRF were ordered to be on duty to prevent loss or damage to life and
property
○
○ In this case, such admissions, that respondents rendered overtime
work and work during their holiday and rest days on the period
specified therein, can be gleaned from the affidavits executed by
Lepanto's managers, employees, and Capt. Edgar Langeg.
● Thus, respondents are clearly entitled to these benefits.
○ Any doubt arising from the evidence between the employer and
employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.
○ Burden to prove payment of monetary claims rests upon employer
since the necessary documents to prove the payment is in the
custody of the employer
○ Lepanto failed to discharge such burden of proof. According to the
CA:
■ The time sheets presented by Lepanto is not substantial
proof that respondents did not perform overtime work
because the time sheets were written in a uniform matter
and in the same handwriting. Hence, it is taken with a
grain of salt
■ Time sheets were also incomplete
 ■ They should have presented copies of its payrolls or pay
slips to show that they paid the benefits
○ For failure to provide proof, there arises a presumption that such
evidence, if presented, would be prejudicial to it.
● CONCLUSION: No error in CA decision affirming the NLRC ruling finding
that Mamaril was illegally dismissed and is entitled to separation pay and
full backwages. Also, no error in finding that respondents are entitled to be
compensated for the overtime, holiday and rest day work that they rendered
during the period specified therein.

RULING: Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.