Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Kar Asia Vs Corona

    Uploaded by

    Mavic Morales
    Employees filed a complaint claiming they were not paid their cost of living allowance (COLA) for 1993 and 1994. The employer presented payrolls showing the employees received and acknowledged their COLA in writing. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employer. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the payrolls were not substantial evidence. The issue is whether the COLA was paid as mandated. The Supreme Court held that yes it was paid. The employees' claims of coercion in signing are self-serving and unproven. For 1993, the employees' action had prescribed. For 1994, while signatures were missing, payslips were signed acknowledging full compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kar Asia Vs Corona

    Uploaded by

    Mavic Morales
    45 views2 pages
    Employees filed a complaint claiming they were not paid their cost of living allowance (COLA) for 1993 and 1994. The employer presented payrolls showing the employees received and acknowledged their COLA in writing. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employer. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the payrolls were not substantial evidence. The issue is whether the COLA was paid as mandated. The Supreme Court held that yes it was paid. The employees' claims of coercion in signing are self-serving and unproven. For 1993, the employees' action had prescribed. For 1994, while signatures were missing, payslips were signed acknowledging full compensation.

    Original Description:

    Labor relations digesr

    Original Title

    Kar Asia vs Corona

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Employees filed a complaint claiming they were not paid their cost of living allowance (COLA) for 1993 and 1994. The employer presented payrolls showing the employees received and acknowledged their COLA in writing. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employer. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the payrolls were not substantial evidence. The issue is whether the COLA was paid as mandated. The Supreme Court held that yes it was paid. The employees' claims of coercion in signing are self-serving and unproven. For 1993, the employees' action had prescribed. For 1994, while signatures were missing, payslips were signed acknowledging full compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views2 pages

    Kar Asia Vs Corona

    Uploaded by

    Mavic Morales
    Employees filed a complaint claiming they were not paid their cost of living allowance (COLA) for 1993 and 1994. The employer presented payrolls showing the employees received and acknowledged their COLA in writing. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of the employer. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the payrolls were not substantial evidence. The issue is whether the COLA was paid as mandated. The Supreme Court held that yes it was paid. The employees' claims of coercion in signing are self-serving and unproven. For 1993, the employees' action had prescribed. For 1994, while signatures were missing, payslips were signed acknowledging full compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MORALES, MARIVIC A. Case No.

    57 [C2, Book III, Part II ]


    Labor Law I Block A

    KAR ASIA, INC. vs MARIO CORONA


    G.R. No. 154985 August 24, 2004

    FACTS:

    Respondents, who are regular employees of petitioners, filed a complaint before a Regional
    Arbitration branch claiming that they were not paid their cost of living allowance (COLA).
    Petitioners countered the allegations and presented in evidence the payrolls for December 1993
    and December 1994 showing that the respondents recognized in writing the receipt of their
    COLA.
    The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioners and the NLRC affirmed the Labor
    Arbiters decision. However, upon petition to the Court of Appeals the decision of the NLRC
    was reversed and declared that the payrolls is not enough for the substantial evidence test. The
    petitioners allege that they have paid the COLA of the employees for the year 1993 and 1994 as
    indicated by the signed payment slips, which the respondent contends to be coerced signatures
    because the said petitioners are alleged to have forced them to sign.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the COLA of the employees for year 1993 and 1994 have been paid as mandated
    under RTWPB XI Wage Order No. 3.

    HELD:

    Yes, the COLA of the employees for the year 1993 and 1994 have been deemed paid. The
    allegations of harassment are inadmissible as self-serving statements and therefore cannot be
    repositories of truth. He who asserts not he who denies must prove; unfortunately, the
    respondents miserably failed to discharge this burden. We also agree with the observation of the
    Labor Arbiter that in 1993 there was no labor dispute since the labor unrest took place only in the
    later part of 1997. Hence, there was no reason for management to harass its employees.
    Regarding the 1993 COLA, the respondents filed the complaint for underpayment of wage on
    September 24, 1997. Thus, the action for the payment of the December 1993 COLA has already
    prescribed. On the other hand, the 1994 COLA contains a computation of the amounts payable to
    the employees for the given period, including a breakdown of the allowances and deductions on
    the amount due, but the signatures of the respondents are conspicuously missing. Ideally, the
    signatures of the respondents should appear in the payroll as evidence of actual payment.
    However, the absence of such signatures does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
    December 1994 COLA was not received. It appears that the payslips for the same period bear
    the signatures of the respondents plus a certification that they received the full compensation for
    the services rendered.
    MORALES, MARIVIC A. Case No. 57 [C2, Book III, Part II ]
    Labor Law I Block A

    You might also like