Dansart Security Force and Allied Services Co. v. SG Jean O.

Bagoy
G.R. No. 168495; July 2, 2010; J. Peralta
Digest prepared by Carlo Roman
I. Facts

Jean Bagoy was employed by Dansart Security Force and Allied Services Co. to
guard the establishments of its various clients such as Ironcorn, Chowking, and Hindu
Temple.
April 1999 November 2001: Bagoy was allegedly caught sleeping on the job and
incurred absences without leave, for which she was given notices of disciplinary
action.
May 14, 2002: Bagoy filed a complaint against his employers, claiming underpayment of
salary and non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay, 13 th month pay, and
service incentive pay.
o She alleges that she has been required to report for work from 7 am to 7 pm with a
salary of Php166, increased to Php180 in Jan. 2001
o She was required to work even on Sundays and holidays but was not paid a holiday
pay, 13th month pay and service incentive pay
o Since December 2001, she has been in floating status, tantamount to constructive
dismissal
Anent these allegations, Dansart Security claims:
o It was Bagoy who abandoned her work beginning Nov. 2011
o They presented several reports issued by the DOLE NCR stating that:
They have not violated any provision of the Labor Code
There is no pending case with DOLE
They have complied with the payment of backwages for 279 guards
NLRC ruled for Dansart, stating that the DOLE reports that the security agency has been
complying with all the mandatory wage increases and other monetary benefits should be
given due respect. CA reversed the NLRC decision.
Hence, this petition.

II. Issue
W/N the security agency is liable for the payment of monetary benefits. YES.
W/N the DOLE Certification should be considered. NO, absent further evidence.
III. Held
Yes, Dansart is liable to Bagoy. Absent further evidence, the DOLE Certification is not sufficient
proof that the monetary benefits have been paid.
IV. Ratio

Doctrine: Any doubt arising from the evaluation of evidence as between the
employer and the employee must be resolved in favor of the latter.
The burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer
o G&M Philippines v. Cuambot: This is because pertinent personnel files, payrolls,
records, remittances, which will show that the claims of the workers have been paid,
are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of
the employer.
The statement that the backwages of the 279 guards have been paid do not in any way
show that Bagoy is one of those, since they failed to show the personal files, payrolls,

remittances, and other documents which will prove the payment of her claims. Failure to
present these pieces of evidence shall be taken against them.