Loon Et Al vs Powermaster

LOON ET AL VS. POWER MATER INC GR NO. 189404 DECEMBER 11, 2013 FACTS:  Pett!"e#$ %&e' ( )!*+&("t !# *!"e- )&(*$ (("$t #e$+!"'e"t$ +!/e# *($te# ("' T#C. " te +ett!" t $ (&&ee' (&&ee' t(t t(t /e#e ($$"e' ($$"e' ($ ("t!#$ ("' &e(' *e" " PLDT !)e$ " *("&( t(t /e#e "!t +(' *"*5* /(e$, !6e#t*e +(-, !&'(-, +#e*5* ("' $e#6)e ")e"t6e &e(6e ("' 13 t *!"t +(-. +(-. Te#e(te#, te +ett!" +ett!"e#$ e#$ (*e"'e' (*e"'e' te# te# )!*+&(" )!*+&("tt ("' ")&5'e' ")&5'e' &&e(& &&e(& '$*$$( '$*$$(&& ($ te# te# )(5$e ! ()t!". Te- )&(*e' t(t t(t te #e$+!"'e"t$ #e$+!"'e"t$ #e&e6e' #e&e6e' te* #!* $e#6)e $e#6)e " #et(&(t!" #et(&(t!" !# te %&&" ! te# !#"(& )!*+&("t. L(7!# L(7!# (#7te# (#7te# +(#t(& +(#t(&&&- #5&e' " (6!# (6!# ! te +ett! +ett!"e# "e#$. $. LA (/(#' (/(#'e' e' te t +ett!"e# $(&(#- 'e#e"t(&$, $e#6)e ")e"t6e &e(6e, ("' 13 *!"t *!"t +(-$. +(-$. B5t 'e"e' )&(*$ !# !# 7() /(e$ , !6e#t*e, !&'(-, !&'(-, ("' +#e*5* +#e*5* +(-$. LA !7$e#6e' t(t te +ett!"e#$ (&e' t! $!/ t(t te- #e"'e#e' #e"'e#e' !6e#t*e /!# ("' /!#e' !" !&'(-$ !&'(-$ ("' #e$t #e$t '(-$ /t!5t /t!5t )!*+e"$(t! )!*+e"$(t!". ". Te- '' "!t $!/ ("- "!t)e "!t)e !  te#*"(t!" ! e*+&!-*e"t. B!t +(#te$ (++e(&e' (++e(&e' t! te NLRC. NLRC. Pett!"e# Pett!"e# '$+5te' te# te# 'e"(& ! te# )&(* )&(* !# 7() /(e$ /(e$ , !6e#t !6e#t*e, *e, !&'(!&'(-,, ("' +#e*5 +#e*5* * +(-$. +(-$. Me("/ Me("/&e &e,, te #e$+ #e$+!"' !"'e"t e"t$ $ 5e$t 5e$t!" !"e' e' te te LA;$ #5&& #5&&" " !" te #!5" #!5"' ' t(t t(t LA '' "!t ()5# ()5#e e  5#$')t!"  5#$')t!" !6e# te# +e#$!"$. +e#$!"$. In the NLRC, The  respondents insisted that they were not personally served with summons and other processes. They also claimed that they paid the petitioners minimum wages, service ince incent ntiv ive e leave leave and and thir thirte teen enth th mont month h pays pays.. As proof proofs, s, they they atta attach ched ed phot photoco ocopi pied ed and and comp comput uter eriz ized ed copie copies s of payro payroll ll shee sheets ts to thei theirr memo memoran randu dum m on appea appeal. l. They furthe further  r  maintained that the petitioners were validly dismissed. They argued that the petitioners’ repeated defiance to their transfer to different workplaces and their violations of the company rules and regula regulatio tions ns consti constitut tuted ed seriou serious s miscon misconduc ductt and willfu willfull disobe disobedien dience. ce. the respon responden dents ts filed filed an unverified supplemental appeal. They attached photocopied and computerized copies of list of  employees with automated teller machine ( ATM)  ATM) cards to the supplemental appeal. This list also showed the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ ATM cards. They also attached attached documentary documentary evidence showing that the petitioners petitioners were dismissed dismissed for cause and had been accorded due process 11

The N!" partially partially ruled in favor favor of the respondents respondents.. The N!" affirmed affirmed the A’s A’s awards of holiday pay and attorney’s fees. fees . #t also maintained that the A ac$uired %urisdiction over the person persons s of the respon responden dents ts throug through h their their volunt voluntary ary appear appearanc ance. e. However However,, it allowed allowed the respondents to submit pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal on the ground that they had been deprived of due process. #t found that the respondents did not actually receive the A’s processes. #t also admitted the respondents’ unverified supplemental appeal on the ground that techni technical caliti ities es may be disreg disregard arded ed to serve serve the greate greaterr intere interest st of substa substanti ntial al due proces process. s. &urthermore, the !ules of "ourt do not re $uire the verification of a supplemental pleading. 'n appeal, to the "A, "A affirmed the decision of N!". (ence this p etition.

#))*+ -(+T(+! '! N'T T(+ !+)'N/+NT) A!+ +NT#T+/ T' !+)+NT +0#/+N"+ &#!)T T#M+ 'N A+A

(+/ A party may only adduce evidence for the first time on appeal if he adequately eplains his delay in the submission of evidence and he sufficiently proves the allegations sought to be proven. #n labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not re$uired. Time and again, we have allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the N!" in the interest of substantial %ustice. (owever, this liberal policy should still be sub%ect to rules of reason and fair play. The liberality of procedural rules is $ualified by two re$uirements 12 a party should ade$uately e3plain any delay in the submission of evidence4 and 52 a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. The reason for these re$uirements is that the liberal application of the rules before $uasi6%udicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate in%ustice and hamper the  %ust resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a license to disregard the rules of procedure.   The N!" capriciously and whimsically admitted and gave weight to the respondents’ evidence despite its finding that they voluntarily appeared in the compulsory arbitration proceedings. The N!" blatantly disregarded the fact that the respondents voluntarily opted not to participate, to adduce evidence in their defense and to file a position paper despite their knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before the A. The respondents were also grossly negligent in not informing the A of the specific building unit where the respondents were conducting their business and their counsel’s address despite their knowledge of their non6receipt of the processes. &urthermore, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. -hy the respondents’ photocopied and computeri7ed copies of documentary evidence were not presented at the earliest opportunity is a serious $uestion that lends credence to the petitioners’ claim that the respondents fabricated the evidence for purposes of appeal. !hile we generally admit in evidence and give probative value to photocopied documents in administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to present the original documents for inspection. #t was incumbent upon the respondents to present the originals, especially in this case where the petitioners had submitted their specimen signatures. #nstead, the respondents effectively deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to e3amine and controvert the alleged spurious evidence by not adducing the originals. This "ourt is thus left with no option but to rule that the respondents’ failure to present the originals raises the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 0iewed in these lights, the scales of %ustice must tilt in favor of the employees. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that the employer’s cause can only succeed on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the employee’s evidence.