28. Pigcaulan v.

Security & Credit AUTHOR: Gojar

G.R. No. 173648, January 16, 2012
TOPIC: Overtime pay; Evidence required

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

 It is upon the EEs to prove the claim for overtime pay. The handwritten itemized computations were insufficient evidence
to prove that the EEs rendered work beyond 8 hours to be entitled to overtime pay. They were self-serving, unreliable and
unsubstantial evidence.
 Sabi ni Atty. Nolasco, they should have presented time cards or outputs that they performed work beyond 8 hrs.

EMERGENCY RECIT: EEs who are security guards filed complaints for underpayment of salaries & non-payment of OVERTIME,
holiday, rest day, SIL & 13th month pay. EEs submitted HANDWRITTEN time records reflecting the # of hours worked & wages for
the same and itemized list of their claims for the periods served. ER alleged they were already paid presented copies of payroll
listing & lists of EE who received their 13th month pay. LA: In favor of EEs and gave credence to the itemized computations and
representative daily time records presented by the EEs as opposed to the payroll listings presented by the ER since those payroll
listing weren’t signed by the EEs. SC: LABOR ARBITER is WRONG for relying heavily on the itemized computations and the
representative daily time records. Since both were HANDRWRITTEN itemized computations and 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, can’t be considered competent evidence to be used as
basis to prove that the EEs weren’t paid their salaries. Hence, there was no evidence to support the claim of the EEs that they
rendered service beyond 8 hours to entitle them to overtime pay and rest day pay for work done allegedly during Sunday.