WILGEN LOON vs Power Master

WILGEN LOON vs. POWER MASTER INC.

Facts: 1. Respondents Respondents Power Power Master Inc. and Tri-C General Services employed employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in varios Philippine !ong "istance Telephone Company #P!"T$ o%ces in Metro Manila area. &. S'se(en S'se(ently) tly) the petition petitioners ers *led a complaint complaint +or money money claims claims against Power Master Inc.) Tri-C General Services and their o%cers) the sposes ,omer and Carina lmisin #collectively) the respondents$. . The petition petitioners ers alleged alleged in their their complaint complaint that they they were not paid paid minimm wages) overtime) holiday) premim) service incentive leave) and thirteenth month pays. /. They +rther +rther averred averred that that the respondents respondents made them sign 'lan0 payroll sheets. . The petitioners petitioners amended amended their their complaint complaint and inclded illegal dismissal as their case o+ action. 2. They claimed claimed that that the responde respondents nts relieve relieved d them +rom +rom service service in retaliation retaliation +or the *ling o+ their original complaint. 7. 3ota'ly) the respondents did not participate in the proceedings 'e+ore the !a'or r'iter e4cept on pril 15) &661 and May &1) &661 when Mr. Romlo Pacia) 7r. appeared on the respondents8 'ehal+. The respondents8 consel also appeared in a preliminary mandatory con+erence on 7ly ) &661. LA’s Ruling: Rulin g: The ! awarded the petitioners 9. LA’s petitioners salary di:erential) di:erential) th service incentive leaves and 1  month pays. In awarding these these claims the ! stated that the 'rden in proving the payment o+ these money claims rests with the employer. ,owever) they were not awarded 'ac0wages) overtime) holiday and premim pays +or +ailre to show that they rendered overtime wor0 and wor0ed on holidays. Moreover) it was not decided that they were illegally dismissed +or +ailre to show notice o+ termination o+ employment. 5. NLRC: ;oth parties appealed to the rling o+ the !. 3!RC a%rmed !8s rling with regard the payment o+ holiday pay and attorney8s +ees 't vacated the awards o+ salary di:erential) 1 th month pays and service incentive leaves. Moreover) 3!RC allowed the respondents to present pieces o+ evidence +or the *rst time on appeal on the grond that they have 'een deprived o+ de process. It also rled that petitioners were legally dismissed de to gross miscondct. 16. CA: Rling o+ the 3!RC was a%rmed.

Issue: an appeal 'y the employer may 'e per+ected) only pon the posting o+ a cash or srety 'ond issed 'y a repta'le 'onding company) dly accredited 'y the Commission) in the amont e(ivalent to the monetary award in the  jdgment appealed +rom.? #. In the present case) the respondents *led a srety 'ond issed 'y Secrity Paci*c ssrance Corporation #Secrity Paci*c$ on 7ne &9) &66&. $. t that time) Secrity Paci*c was still an accredited 'onding company. %. ,owever) the 3!RC revo0ed its accreditation on @e'rary 12) &66. &. 3onetheless) t'is su(se)uent *ev+cati+n s'+ul, n+t -*eu,ice t'e *es-+n,ents /'+ *elie, +n its t'en su(sisting acc*e,itati+n in g++, 0ait'. 7. In "el Rosario v. Philippine 7ornalists) Inc.) we rled that a 'onding company8s revocation o+ athority is prospective in application. 1. ,owever) the respondents shold post a new 'ond issed 'y an accredited 'onding company in compliance with paragraph /) Section 2) Rle 2 o+ the 3!RC Rles o+ Procedre. This provision states that >AaB cash or srety 'ond shall 'e valid and e:ective +rom the date o+ deposit or posting) ntil the case is *nally decided) resolved or terminated or the award satis*ed.? 5. Contrary to the respondents8 claim) t'e issue +0 t'e a--eal (+n,’s vali,it2 3a2 (e *aise, 0+* t'e 4*st ti3e +n a--eal since its -*+-e* 4ling is a u*is,icti+nal *e)ui*e3ent. 16.The re(irement that the appeal 'ond shold 'e issed 'y an accredited 'onding company is mandatory and jrisdictional. The rationale o+ re(iring an appeal 'ond) is to discorage the employers +rom sing an appeal to delay or evade the employees8 jst and law+l claims. It is intended to assre the wor0ers that they will receive the money jdgment in their +avor i+ the employer8s appeal is dismissed.  A party may only adduce evidence for the rst time on appeal if he adequately explains his delay in the submission of evidence and he suciently proves the allegations sought to be proven . 1. In la'or cases) strict adherence to the technical rles o+ procedre is not re(ired. &. ,owever) this li'eral policy shold still 'e s'ject to rles o+ reason and +air play. . The li'erality o+ procedral rles is (ali*ed 'y two re(irements= #1$ a party shold ade(ately e4plain any delay in the s'mission o+  evidence and #&$ a party shold s%ciently prove the allegations soght to 'e proven. /. The reason +or these re(irements is that) the li'eral application o+ the rles 'e+ore (asi-jdicial agencies cannot 'e sed to perpetate injstice and hamper the jst resoltion o+ the case.

. 3either is the rle on li'eral constrction a license to disregard the rles o+ procedre.