Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 547 views

    Prangan V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    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.

    Copyright:

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

    Prangan V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    547 views1 page
    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.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Prangan v NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    547 views1 page

    Prangan V NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous bOncqbp8yi
    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.

    Copyright:

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