Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE CALABARZON
Camp Vicente Lim, Barangay Mayapa, Calamba City

Administrative Case No.

Complainant,

Rizal PPO
Respondent
x----------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENTS, hereby files this Motion for Reconsideration from the

26 March 2012 Decision of the Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M.
Macaraya of the Department of Labor and Employment, a copy of which was
received on 17 April 2012 by Respondents and respectfully avers: THAT--

THE RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION

The Honorable Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macaraya of the

Department of Labor and Employment promulgated a Decision on 26 March
2012, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

MONDRAGON CONSTRUCTION CORP. and/or
MR. WILLIAM QUE is/are ordered to pay
PERFECTO BALGOS and two (2) other similarly
situated employees, the aggregate amount of
THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P380,175.00)
 within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
Failure to comply with this Order within the
period prescribed shall cause the imposition of
a penalty of double indemnity pursuant to
Republic Act No. 8188, otherwise known as An
Act Increasing the Penalty and Imposing
Double Indemnity for Violation of the
Prescribed Increase or Adjustment in the Wage
Rates.

A Writ of Execution shall be issued upon

finality of this Order.

SO ORDERED.
ATTY. ALAN M. MACARAYA,
CEO III
Regional
Director

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC
COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED THAT COMPLAINANT WAS
RECEIVING A DAILY SALARY ABOVE THE MINIMUM WAGES BASED ON
ALLEGATIONS AND UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS.

II.
THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NLRC FAILED TO APPLY ART.
4 OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED ON THE CONSTRUCTION IN
FAVOR OF LABOR CLAUSE.

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS

Complainants has been paid as part of their wages the facilities and benefits
for lodging and electric power amounting to Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) per month which is being paid to the complainants as forming
part of their wages. Copies of sworn statement of _________________________
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 1, 2 and 3.

The total non-cash benefits which is being paid to the complainants for the
period of three (3) years amounting to One Hundred Eight Thousand Pesos
(P108,000.00) must be deducted from the salary differential of each of the
complainants.

is a grave error in judgment resulting to grave abuse of discretion in

the since that its decision was based on MERE ALLEGATIONS and the
unreliable summary of compensation marked as Annex 1 appended in
respondents Reply.

2. Complainant vehemently denies that he receives a daily salary of

P435.00 the truth of the matter is that complainant receives only a daily
salary of P300.00 since at the outset of his employment. Likewise,
complainant strongly contends that he did not receive a daily allowance of
P100.00 as well as meal allowance of P35.00 since at the outset of his
employment.

3. There is no record that complainant admits that he receive a

daily allowance of P100.00 as well as meal allowance of P35.00.
4. The alleged summary of compensation (Annex 1 appended in
respondents Reply) is a mere computer print-outs and the same has been
shown that it was not acknowledged by the complainant. The said summary
of compensation is a ploy of the respondents to cover up their failure to
provide complainants daily minimum wage provided by law and existing
wage order.
 5. Unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated, hence,
unreliable. Mere self-serving evidences of which the listing and print-outs are
of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any rational probative
value even in administrative proceedings.

6. In IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, [305 SCRA 592 (1999)], the
Supreme Court clarified that the liberality of procedure in
administrative actions is not absolute and does not justify the total
disregard of certain fundamental rules of evidence. Evidence
without any rational probative value may not be made the basis of
order or decision of administrative bodies. Resultantly, it was held
in this case that computer print-outs afford no assurance of their
authenticity because they are unsigned.

7. The burdened of proof that payment of complainants wages had

been made rests upon the employer.

8. The monetary claims enumerated by Complainant rightly

belongs to him, and a perusal and personal examination of the original
payrolls and vouchers that respondents had in its possession should be
undertaken by the Commission to exactly determine whether the 13th month
pay and service incentive leave pay, and other labor standard benefits have
been paid.

9. It is mandatory for the Respondents to show and present that the

monetary benefits provided by law were indeed paid, only an HONEST and
CLEAN ORIGINAL PAYROLLS/VOUCHERS that can prove payment for the
three (3) years backward period of employment.

10. Monetary claims employer has burden of proof. In G & M Phils.,

Inc. vs. Batomalaque, G.R. No. 151849, June 23, 2005, the well settled
rule that a party who alleges payment as a defense has a burden of
proving was again reiterated. Specifically with respect to labor
cases, the burden of proving payment of money claims rest on the
employer, the rationally being that the pertinent personnel files,
payrolls, records remittances and other similar documents which
will show that overtime, differential, service incentive leave, and
other claims of workers have been paid are not in the position of the
worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.
Aside, however, from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz
had fully paid respondents salaries, petitioner did not present any
evidence, e.g. payroll or pay slip to support its payment. Petitioner
thus failed to discharge the onus probandi.

11. It must be remembered that bare allegations unsubstantiated by

evidence, are not equivalent to proof (Domingo vs. Robles, 453 SCRA
812, March 18, 2005).

12. This allegation is not evidence or proof unless substantiated by

evidence. It has been held that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules. Mere allegations are
not evidence. (Mayor vs. Belen, 430 SCRA 561, 567 [June 3, 2004]).

13. Bare allegations cannot be given any probative value for

lack of Modicum of Admissibility. This has been declared by the Supreme
Court in the case of Uichico vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 271, wherein it held that:

xxxWhile the rules of evidence

prevailing in the courts of law of equity are not
controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the
evidence presented before it must at least have
a modicum of admissibility for it to be given
some probative.
 14. There are serious doubts in the allegations on record by the
respondents as to factual basis of the payment of salaries and wages of the
complainant. These doubts should be resolved in favor of labor in line with
the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe
doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between
the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of
justice must be tilted in favor of latter. The employer must affirmatively show
rationally adequate evidence that the complainant was not dismissed by
evidence that was self-serving, afterthought and motivated by desire to grind
an axe.

15. The rule enunciated in Article 4 of the Labor Code likewise

applies in the appreciation of evidence in labor proceedings.
Consequently, when there is a doubt between the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee, such doubt should be
resolved in favor of the latter. (Philippine Employ Services and
Resources, Inc. vs. Paramio, G. R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004 citing Asuncion
v. NLRC, G. R. No. 129329, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 56).

16. It is a settle rule that in controversies between a laborer

and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in
the interpretation of agreement and writings, should be resolved in
the formers favor. (Citing Violeta v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119523, Oct. 10, 1997,
280 SCRA 520, 531; L.T. Datu and Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113162, Feb. 9,
1996, 253 SCRA 440, 449).

17. All said, this is the legal, moral and factual framework whereby
this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the First Division of the NLRC
Decision, dated 25 November 2011 that Complainant-Appellant pursue his
case.

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
the Decision dated 26 March 2012of the Honorable Regional Director Atty.
Alan M. Macaraya be reconsidered and set aside and a new one entered in
favor of appellants.

Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Pasig City, 23 April 2012.

WILLIAM QUE
Respondent for and on his own behalf
Unit 48, L.A. Town Homes, Concepcion Street
Buting, Pasig City

Copy Furnished:

MR. PERFECTO BALGOS, Et. Al.

Block No. 63, Lot No. 21
Golden City, Brgy. Dila
Sta. Rosa, Laguna

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was served on the other
party by registered mail with return card due to lack of available
messengerial personnel to effect personal service or delivery.
 WILLIAM QUE

VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION

I, WILLIAM QUE, Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for

Reconsideration, and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the
same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and
authentic documents;

3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other
tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to
inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice
thereof.
 Done this 23rd day of April 2012, at Pasig City.

WILLIAM QUE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of April 2012,

in Pasig City, Philippines. Affiant appears in person and presents his Driver
License No. _________________, identifying himself through a competent
evidence of identifying and signing this document in my presence and
affirming under oath the truthfulness of this document.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.________;
Page No.________;
Book No.________;
Series of 2012.