[Bantolino v Coca Cola]

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW | B2015 CASES

Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.

- Coke interposed the defense that there is no employee-employer relationship between the parties and that Lipercon Lipercon and People’s specialist are the employers, the two being independent contractors.

 June 12, 2003 Bellosillo, J.  Javie

- The LA ordered reinstatement with payment of full backwages. It gave more credence to the testimonies of the employees .The NLRC affirmed.

SUMMARY: In the complaint for ULP of the employees against Coke, some of 

the affidavits were not affirmed in trial and were not cross-examined. When the case reached the CA, these affidavits were not given probative value and were stricken off the record. The SC ruled that administrative bodies, like the NLRC, are not bound by the strict procedural rules of regular courts and reversed the CA. DOCTRINE:

administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of  law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trialtype hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits.

FACTS: - 62 employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., and its officers, Lipercon Services, Inc., People’s Specialist Services, Inc., and Interim Services, Inc., filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the 3 companies through illegal dismissal, violation of their security of tenure and the perpetuation of the “Cabo System.” - The claims of 52 of them were dismissed due to failure to prosecute. The 10 remaining alleged that they were employees of Coke and that the latter replaced and prevented them from entering the company premises and that  they are illegally dismissed.

- The CA affirmed the finding that there was an employee-employer relationship but said that the affidavits of 7 of the complainants should not  have been given probative value for their failure to affirm the contents thereof  and to undergo cross-examination. - The petitioners (employees) came to the SC for reinstatement of the NLRC decision. They insist that, unlike regular courts, labor cases are decided based merely on the parties’ position papers and affidavits in support of their allegations and subsequent pleadings that may be filed thereto. As such, according to petitioners, the Rules of Court should not be strictly applied i n this case specifically by putting them on the witness stand to be cross-examined because the NLRC has its own rules of procedure which were applied by the Labor Arbiter in coming up with a decision i n their favor. - Coke, on the other hand, insists that affidavits not testified to in a trial are mere hearsay evidence and has no real evidentiary value. ISSUE: WON the affidavits should have been given probative value despite the failure of the affiants to affirm the same and undergo cross-examination– cross-examination– YES RATIO: - The court cited several cases: Rabago v. NLRC: the argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. Rase v. NLRC: it was not necessary for the affiants to appear and testify and be cross-examined by counsel for the adverse party. To require otherwise would be to negate the rationale and purpose of the

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | B2015 CASES summary nature of the proceedings mandated by the Rules and to make mandatory the application of the technical rules of evidence. Southern Cotabato Dev. and Construction Co. v. NLRC: under Art. 221 of  the Labor Code, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Further, it notes that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are authorized to adopt reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process. We find no compelling reason to deviate therefrom.

- administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of  law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revi sed Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent  application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. - a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of  an administrative proceeding - Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trial-type hearings are not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with supporting documents and their affidavits. Other issues: On Romero (one of the employees) who allegedly signed a quitclaim - An examination of the quitclaim shows that it is devoid of any palpable inequity, the terms are just and fair. It must be recognized as valid and binding. On the failure of the employees to sign the petition, verification, certification for non-forum shopping - The procedural infirmity may be overlooked because at that time, they were not yet represented by a counsel. RULING: