[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
649 views1 page

Prangan V NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prangan in the case of Prangan v. NLRC. The Court found that Masagana Security Services Corp (MSSC), who hired Prangan as a security guard, did not prove that Prangan only worked 4 hours per day as MSSC claimed. MSSC did not provide any credible evidence such as an employment contract or accurate time records to prove the actual hours worked. Meanwhile, Prangan provided documents signed by MSSC that indicated he worked 12 hours per day. Therefore, the Court concluded MSSC did not meet its burden of proof to show Prangan's actual work hours were only 4 hours per day.

Uploaded by

Charelle Sy-Serrano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
649 views1 page

Prangan V NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prangan in the case of Prangan v. NLRC. The Court found that Masagana Security Services Corp (MSSC), who hired Prangan as a security guard, did not prove that Prangan only worked 4 hours per day as MSSC claimed. MSSC did not provide any credible evidence such as an employment contract or accurate time records to prove the actual hours worked. Meanwhile, Prangan provided documents signed by MSSC that indicated he worked 12 hours per day. Therefore, the Court concluded MSSC did not meet its burden of proof to show Prangan's actual work hours were only 4 hours per day.

Uploaded by

Charelle Sy-Serrano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Prangan v.

NLRC
GR No. 126529, 15 April 1998

Facts
 Private respondent Masagana Security Services Corp (MSSC) hired Prangan as
one of its security guards. Thereafter, he was assigned to the Cat House Bar and
Restaurant with a monthly salary of P2,000 until its closure.
 Petitioner filed a complaint against MSSC for underpayment of wages, non-
payment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, night shift
differential, uniform allowance, service incentive leave pay and 13th month
pay from the year 1990 to 1993.
o Respondent’s defense: it merely acted as an agent of Prangan in securing
his employment at the Cat House Bar & Resto.
 LA: in favor of Prangan. NLRC: in favor of MSSC, ruled that Prangan only
worked for 4 hours and not 12 hrs a day. The shorter hours resulted in a lower
monetary award by the Labor Arbiter.
 As proof, MSSC submitted daily time records showing that he only worked 4
hrs. But petitioner claims they were falsified.

Issue & Ruling


WON Prangan was proven to work only 4 hrs a day. NO
 As petitioner’s employer, private respondent has unlimited access to all relevant
documents and records on the hours of work of the petitioner. Yet, even as it
insists that petitioner only worked for four hours and not twelve, no employment
contract, payroll, notice of assignment or posting, cash voucher or any other
convincing evidence which may attest to the actual hours of work of the petitioner
was even presented. Instead, what the private respondent offered as evidence
was only petitioner’s daily time record, which the latter categorically denied ever
accomplishing, much less signing.
 The document showed that petitioner started work at 10:00 p.m. and would
invariably leave his post at exactly 2:00 a.m. Obviously, such unvarying recording
of a daily time record is improbable and contrary to human experience. It is
impossible for an employee to arrive at the workplace and leave at exactly the
same time, day in day out. The very uniformity and regularity of the entries are
badges of untruthfulness and as such indices of dubiety.
o In the personnel data sheet of the petitioner, duly signed by the former’s
operation manager, it shows on its face that the latter’s hours of work are
from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or twelve hours a day. Hence, private
respondent is estopped from assailing the contents of its own documents.
o Lastly, the attendance sheets of Cat House Bar and Restaurant
showed that petitioner worked from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily,
documents which were never repudiated by the private respondent.

You might also like