Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > May 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-49893. May 9, 1988.]

DANIEL C. ASPACIO, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE AMADO G. INCIONG, and PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Jose L. Sison for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for public Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR CONCLUSIVE ON APPEAL. — The findings of facts of the Deputy Minister are conclusive in these proceedings. This Court is not a trier of facts. Its sole role is to apply the law based on the findings of facts brought before it. It was certainly within the power of public respondent to reverse the findings of facts of the labor arbiter which do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.

2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; EACH PARTY MUST PROVE HIS OWN AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE ALLEGATIONS. — It is the cardinal rule in this jurisdiction that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. The suitor who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that fact. Petitioner, having failed to prove his claim for commissions, his action must fail.

3. ID.; EVIDENCE; PUBLIC DOCUMENT, BEST EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. — Respondent company presented a copy of the release of the claim of petitioner releasing said respondent from any or all claims arising from the employment of petitioner. From this it can be implied that the claim for the payment of unpaid commission, if any, has already been paid. The release of claim executed by petitioner, and duly notarized by a notary public, is a public document. It constitutes the best evidence of the payment of any or all claims petitioner has against private respondent including the commissions.

4. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR CODE; PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEE; NOT A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IN PERFECTING APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR. — Under Section II, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, "any party aggrieved by the decision of the Commission may appeal such decision to the Secretary of Labor within ten (10) working days from receipt thereof . . . . ." Section 12 thereof also provides that "the appeal must be filed with the Commission within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision, copy furnished the appellee, who shall in turn file his answer within ten (10) working days from receipt of the appeal." There is no provision that payment of appeal fee is required to perfect the appeal.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


Daniel Aspacio was employed with the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines (company) since May 10, 1975. In the course of his employment, he contracted malignant hypertension. Upon recommendation of the company physician, he was retired on June 1, 1976 and received the amount of P6,820.00 in retirement benefits and P700.00 for 13th month pay.

He then filed a complaint with the Region IV office of the Department of Labor for recovery of P7,535.62 representing the balance of his retirement benefits and for alleged commissions due upon retirement as stipulated under the collective bargaining contract between the petitioner and the company. He submitted his position paper. The company also submitted its position paper denying petitioner’s claim and presenting an alleged quitclaim and release. On March 18, 1977, Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., Officer-in-Charge of the Region, denied the certification of the case to the labor arbiter and dismissed the case pursuant to Section 7(a) and (c), Rule XII, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. Aspacio appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations disowning the signature on the release and quitclaim. On July 5, 1977, Acting director Francisco Estrella set aside the order of the Regional Director and certified the case for compulsory arbitration. After hearing, the labor arbiter rendered a decision on August 4, 1977, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay complainant herein the sum of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Five Pesos & 62/100 (P7,535.62) representing the balance of his retirement (disability) benefits, as well as the commission due him under the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the parties.

"The Socio-Economic Analyst of the Commission is ordered to proceed to the premises of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Balete Drive, Corner Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City, and compute the commission due the complainant upon his retirement, and to submit his report to the undersigned for further disposition."cralaw virtua1aw library

The company appealed the decision of the labor arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which was opposed by Aspacio. On February 13, 1978, the Second Division of the National Labor Relations Commission issued a resolution dismissing the appeal which resolution was appealed by the respondent company to the Secretary of Labor on March 7, 1978. Meanwhile, the labor arbiter issued a writ of execution on March 6, 1979 directing the deputy sheriff to collect the amount of P7,535.62 from the respondent company.

On April 4, 1978, the labor arbiter upon motion of Aspacio issued an order directing the deputy sheriff to release the amount collected to Aspacio. However, on April 12, 1978 after the amount was released, the labor arbiter issued an order directing Aspacio to return the amount in view of the stay of execution ordered by the Secretary of Labor, as well as the motion of the respondent company on April 20, 1978.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of partial satisfaction of the decision of the labor arbiter rendering the appeal filed by the company moot and academic. Meanwhile, on May 16, 1978, within the reglementary period, Aspacio filed an appeal from said order of the labor arbiter of April 12, 1978.

On July 18, 1978, the Deputy Minister of Labor issued an order affirming the decision of the labor arbiter awarding retirement benefits in the amount of P7.535.62 to the complainant but dismissing the award of unpaid commissions. A motion for reconsideration of this order was filed by Aspacio but it was denied in an order of December 18, 1978. Hence this petition filed by Aspacio wherein the following issues are raised:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. May the Deputy Minister of Labor validly reverse the findings of facts of the labor arbiter which are supported by substantial evidence?

"2. May the Deputy Minister of Labor entertain an appeal which is fatally defective?"

In respect to the award of the unpaid commissions, the Deputy Minister made the following disquisitions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, with respect to the award of unpaid commissions of undetermined amount to complainant herein, the record is bereft of any clear and convincing evidence which would support an intelligible decision to this effect. Except to the allegations made by complainant in his pleadings, there is no other proof sufficient enough to sustain his claim for unpaid commissions.

"Considering further, that the present case was submitted for resolution upon motion of complainant’s counsel, without hearing on the merits, it was incumbent upon the complainant to submit and introduce clear and convincing evidence showing that he was not really paid his commissions. In this, complainant failed to do so."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing findings of facts of the Deputy Minister are conclusive in these proceedings. This Court is not a trier of facts. Its sole role is to apply the law based on the findings of facts brought before it. It was certainly within the power of public respondent to reverse the findings of facts of the labor arbiter which do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Moreover, this is a claim of petitioner for unpaid commissions without any specification of the approximate amount thereof, the period when it was due and the number and kind of bottles he sold. Even the labor arbiter himself could not determine the amount of the unpaid commission due to the complaint. He was constrained to order the Socio-Economic Analyst of the NLRC to compute the commission due. Obviously, the petitioner has not adduced adequate evidence to prove his claim.

Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement on which petitioner relies for his claim provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Daily Average Commission - For purposes of this Agreement, the daily average commission shall be computed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Daily Average Total Actual Commission (Absences

with

Commission = Total Scheduled = permission

Routing Days of without pay)

the Individual

"Annex ‘B’ of the said Collective Bargaining Agreement further provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Effective on October 1, 1975 and during the duration of this Agreement, the Commission per case will be as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Regular Size Family Size

Salesman .1325 .16656

Incumbent First

Helper .0900 .11765

Truck Helper .020 .0264"

The foregoing shows that commissions are paid on certain periods of the month, if not daily. Certainly, it can not be interpreted to mean that commissions can be paid only upon retirement.

It is the cardinal rule in this jurisdiction that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. 1 The suitor who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that fact. 2 Petitioner, having failed to prove his claim for commissions, his action must fail.

Moreover, respondent company presented a copy of the release of the claim of petitioner releasing said respondent from any or all claims arising from the employment of petitioner. 3 From this it can be implied that the claim for the payment of unpaid commission, if any, has already been paid. The release of claim executed by petitioner, and duly notarized by a notary public, is a public document. It constitutes the best evidence of the payment of any or all claims petitioner has against private respondent including the commissions.

The second point raised by petitioner is that the appeal of respondent company should not be entertained by public respondent due to the fact that the appeal fee has not been paid. The contention of petitioner is devoid of merit.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Under Section II, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, "any party aggrieved by the decision of the Commission may appeal such decision to the Secretary of Labor within ten (10) working days from receipt thereof . . . . ." Section 12 thereof also provides that "the appeal must be filed with the Commission within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision, copy furnished the appellee, who shall in turn file his answer within ten (10) working days from receipt of the appeal." There is no provision that payment of appeal fee is required to perfect the appeal.

WHEREFORE, the herein petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court.

2. Ramcar, Inc. v. Garcia, 4 SCRA 1087 (1962).

3. Annex "D" Manifestation Position Paper, p. 15, Records.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988 - IGNACIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988 - SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43446 May 3, 1988 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-39272 May 4, 1988 - EUGENIA SALAMAT VDA. DE MEDINA v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66183 May 4, 1988 - RICARDO O. MONTINOLA, JR. v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 May 4, 1988 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-74410 May 4, 1988 - PABLO MAYOR v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53984 May 5, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-70987 May 5, 1988 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78605 May 5, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53907 May 6, 1988 - MODERN FISHING GEAR LABOR UNION v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-57719-21 May 6, 1988 - WILFREDO DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76595 May 6, 1988 - PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY

  • G.R. No. L-30964 May 9, 1988 - SY CHIE JUNK SHOP, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43825 May 9, 1988 - CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46303 May 9, 1988 - VICENTE S. UMALI v. JORGE COQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47968 May 9, 1989

    LINA MONTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48064 May 9, 1988 - ANTHONY POWERS, ET AL. v. DONALD I. MARSHALL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49893 May 9, 1988 - DANIEL C. ASPACIO v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51278 May 9, 1988 - HEIRS OF RAMON PIZARRO, SR. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM P. SERANILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56505 May 9, 1988 - MAXIMO PLENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56923 May 9, 1988 - RAMON J. ALEGRE v. MANUEL T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57061 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANGUIGIN MACATANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57280 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IV, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68940 May 9, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO ABAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77227 May 9, 1988 - COMMANDER REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78604 May 9, 1988 - BATAAN SHIPYARD and ENGINEERING CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81190 May 9, 1988 - MATIAS B. AZNAR III, ET AL. v. JUANITO A. BERNAD, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-6-RTJ May 11, 1988 - PELAGIO SICAT v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38426 May 11, 1988 - PEDRO DE VILLA v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-48848 May 11, 1988 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48889 May 11, 1989

    DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-65680 May 11, 1988 - JOSE B. SARMIENTO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L79644 May 11, 1988 - LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53873 May 13, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47379 May 16, 1988 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3153 May 17, 1988 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-58652 May 20, 1988 - ALFREDO B. RODILLAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50242 May 21, 1988 - E. RAZON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53966 May 21, 1988 - IN RE: JOSE B. YUSAY, ET AL. v. TERESITA Y. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-60487 May 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-72069 & L-72070 May 21, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77465 May 21, 1988 - UY TONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78343 May 21, 1988 - HEIRS OF RICARDO OLIVAS v. FLORENTINO A. FLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37409 May 23, 1988 - NICOLAS VALISNO v. FELIPE ADRIANO

  • G.R. No. L-47414 May 23, 1988 - ELIODORO T. ISCALA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71863 May 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO POLICARPIO KHAN

  • G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988 - CONCEPCION B. TUPUE v. JOSE URGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74907 May 23, 1988 - PEDRO S. LACSA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76258 May 23, 1988 - JUANITO S. AMANDY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79010 May 23, 1988 - GENEROSO CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30751 May 24, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GENERAL ACCEPTANCE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38570 May 24, 1988 - DOMINGO PADUA v. VICENTE ERICTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57145 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN ATUTUBO

  • G.R. No. L-66575 May 24, 1988 - ADRIANO MANECLANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71909 May 24, 1988 - JANE CUA, ET AL. v. CARMEN LECAROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80066 May 24, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988 - FERNANDO GALLARDO v. JUAN BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. L-61093 May 25, 1988 - ELIGIO P. MALLARI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 74451 May 25, 1988 - EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77859 May 25, 1988 - CENTURY TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988 - CARLOS CARPIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46188 May 28, 1988 - HELENA ALMAZAR v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46556 May 28, 1988 - NAPOLEON O. CARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51101 May 28, 1988 - RUFINO NAZARETH, ET AL. v. RENATO S. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53650 May 28, 1988 - VIRGINIA M. RAMOS v. ABDUL-WAHID A. BIDIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56362 May 28, 1988 - TOMASITA AQUINO v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56429 May 28, 1988 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. FIDEL PURISIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58997 May 28, 1988 - MARCELINO TIBURCIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988 - WALTER ASCONA LEE, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61223 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO L. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. L-61464 May 28, 1988 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66884 May 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TEMBLOR

  • G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988 - JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS GALING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38303 May 30, 1988 - HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. RALPH PAULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43866 May 30, 1988 - PETRONIO COLLADO, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48757 May 30, 1988 - MAURO GANZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-67158, 67159, 67160, 67161, & 67162 May 30, 1988 - CLLC E.G. GOCHANGCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO CARDENAS

  • G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 - ANDREW PALERMO v. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-36773 May 31, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54290 May 31, 1988 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. IRINEO PANGILINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57650 May 31, 1988 - CATALINO Y. TINGA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-59801 May 31, 1988 - LEONOR P. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 78775 May 31, 1988 - JOSE UNCHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80774 May 31, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988 - VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC., ET AL. v. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82330 May 31, 1988 - DIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82568 May 31, 1988 - ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.