Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    G & M Philippines, Inc., V Romil V. Cuambot G.R. No. 162308 November 22, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    gg
    1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner placement agency and employer in Saudi Arabia for unpaid wages and inhumane working conditions. The petitioner claimed to have paid the respondent and provided payslips, but the court found that the failure to provide original documents cast doubt on the petitioner's claims. 2) The court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that doubts or ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the employee. The burden is on the employer to prove with certainty that payment was made. 3) In a separate case, the court found that a bank could not use a customer's deposits in a foreign branch to offset loans without the customer's consent, as the branches were legally separate entities.

    Copyright:

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

    G & M Philippines, Inc., V Romil V. Cuambot G.R. No. 162308 November 22, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    gg
    78 views2 pages
    1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner placement agency and employer in Saudi Arabia for unpaid wages and inhumane working conditions. The petitioner claimed to have paid the respondent and provided payslips, but the court found that the failure to provide original documents cast doubt on the petitioner's claims. 2) The court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that doubts or ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the employee. The burden is on the employer to prove with certainty that payment was made. 3) In a separate case, the court found that a bank could not use a customer's deposits in a foreign branch to offset loans without the customer's consent, as the branches were legally separate entities.

    Original Title

    Case 5-A

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner placement agency and employer in Saudi Arabia for unpaid wages and inhumane working conditions. The petitioner claimed to have paid the respondent and provided payslips, but the court found that the failure to provide original documents cast doubt on the petitioner's claims. 2) The court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that doubts or ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the employee. The burden is on the employer to prove with certainty that payment was made. 3) In a separate case, the court found that a bank could not use a customer's deposits in a foreign branch to offset loans without the customer's consent, as the branches were legally separate entities.

    Copyright:

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

    G & M Philippines, Inc., V Romil V. Cuambot G.R. No. 162308 November 22, 2006 Facts

    Uploaded by

    gg
    1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner placement agency and employer in Saudi Arabia for unpaid wages and inhumane working conditions. The petitioner claimed to have paid the respondent and provided payslips, but the court found that the failure to provide original documents cast doubt on the petitioner's claims. 2) The court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that doubts or ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the employee. The burden is on the employer to prove with certainty that payment was made. 3) In a separate case, the court found that a bank could not use a customer's deposits in a foreign branch to offset loans without the customer's consent, as the branches were legally separate entities.

    Copyright:

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

    G & M PHILIPPINES, INC., v ROMIL V.

    CUAMBOT
    G.R. No. 162308 November 22, 2006
    Facts:
    On November 7, 1994, respondent Romil V. Cuambot applied for deployment to Saudi Arabia as a car
    body builder with petitioner G & M Philippines, Inc., a duly licensed placement and recruitment agency.
    Respondents application was duly processed and he later signed a two-year employment contract to work
    at the Al Waha Workshop in Unaizah City, Gassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He left the country on
    January 5, 1995. However, respondent did not finish his contract and returned to the Philippines barely
    six months later, on July 24, 1995. On July 26, 1995, he filed before the National Labor Relations
    Commission (NLRC) a complaint for unpaid wages, withheld salaries, refund of plane ticket and
    repatriation bond, later amended to include illegal dismissal, claim for the unexpired portion of his
    employment contract, actual, exemplary and moral damages, and attorneys fees. Respondent narrated that
    he began working for Mohd Al Motairi, the President and General Manager of the Al Waha Workshop,
    on January 8, 1995. Along with his Filipino co-workers, he was subjected to inhuman and unbearable
    working conditions, among others, requiring him to work for over 15 hours a day, receiving no monthly
    basic salary, subjected to insults by respondent Muthiri whenever he demands for his salary. After
    repeated demands, respondent then warned him to leave which came true after the demand of Cuambot,
    he was then ordered to pack up and leave. Petitioner alleged that respondent was deployed for overseas
    work as car body builder for its Principal Golden Wings Est. for General Services and Recruitment in
    Saudi Arabia for an employment period of 24 months, with a monthly salary of US$400.00. It insisted
    that respondent was religiously paid his salaries as they fell due. After working for a little over seven
    months, respondent pleaded with his employer to be allowed to return home since there were family
    problems he had to settle personally. Respondent even submitted a resignation letter. P etitioner submitted
    in evidence copies of seven payslip authenticated by the Philippine Labor Attach in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    Respondent countered that his signatures in the purported payslips were forged. He denied having
    received his salaries for the said period, except only for the SAR100 as monthly allowance. Labor Arbiter
    Jose De Vera ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed.
    Issue:
    Whether the signatures of respondent in the payslips are mere forgeries.
    Held:
    The Court found that petitioners failure to submit the original copies of the pay slips and the resignation
    letter raises doubts as to the veracity of its claim that they were actually signed/penned by respondent.
    The failure of a party to produce the original copy of the document which is in issue has been taken
    against such party, and has even been considered as a mere bargaining chip, a dilatory tactic so that such
    party would be granted the opportunity to adduce controverting evidence. Petitioner did not even present
    in evidence the original copy of the employment contract, much less a machine copy, giving credence to
    respondents claim that he was not at all given a copy of the employment contract after he signed it. It
    bears stressing that the original copies of all these documents, including the employment contract, were in
    the possession of petitioner, or, at the very least, petitioners principal.
    It is a well-settled doctrine, that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the
    employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a
    time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts
    reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing
    should be resolved in the formers favor. (Nicario v. National Labor Relations Commission)
    Moreover, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. The reason for the rule is
    that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
    documents which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave, and other
    claims of workers have been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody
    and absolute control of the employer. Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that
    the obligation has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in accordance with the
    rule that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
    Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been
    extinguished does the burden shift to the creditor, who is then under a duty of
    producing evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation.

    G.R. No. 156132             February 6, 2007


    CITIBANK, N.A. (Formerly First National City Bank) and INVESTORS’ FINANCE
    CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of FNCB Finance, Petitioners, 
    vs.
    MODESTA R. SABENIANO, Respondent
    Facts:
    Repondent, Modesta R. Sabeniano, was a client of petitioners. She had several deposits and market
    placements with petitioners, among which were her savings account with the local branch of petitioner
    Citibank, money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance; and dollar accounts with the Geneva
    branch of petitioner Citibank. Respondent, also, had outstanding loans with petitioner, all of which are
    due and demandable by May 1979. Unfortunately, respondent failed to pay her outstanding loans despite
    repeated demands by petitioner Citibank. Thereafter, petitioner liquidated her obligations to which
    respondent denied having such as well as having been informed of the off-setting made by petitioner
    Citibank using her deposits and money market placements with petitioners. Seeking to recover her
    deposits and money market placements, respondent filed a complaint for “Accounting, Sum of Money
    and Damages” against petitioner. The trial court rendered the set-off illegal, null and void and ordered
    petitioner bank to refund the amount with legal interest while declaring respondent indebted to petitioner
    bank. The decision was affirmed by CA in favour of Respondent.
    Issue:
    W/N petitioner may exercise its right to set-off respondent’s loans
    Held:
    Petitioner holds no authority to demand the remittance of respondent’s dollar accounts with Citibank-
    Geneva and to apply them to her outstanding loans. It cannot effect legal compensation under Article
    1278 of the Civil Code since, petitioner Citibank itself admitted that Citibank-Geneva is a distinct and
    separate entity. Since petitioner Citibank and respondent were principal creditors of each other, in
    compliance with the requirements under Article 1279 of the Civil Code, 8 then the former could have very
    well used off-setting or compensation to extinguish the parties’ obligations to one another. However, the
    court still maintains its original position in the decision that the ooff-setting cannot be effected.

    You might also like