1

Loon v. Power Master, Inc., 712 SCRA (Best Evidence) the respondents relieved them from service in retaliation for the filing of their
original complaint.
WILGEN LOON, JERRY ARCILLA, ALBERTPEREYE, ARNOLD PEREYE,
EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS, PATROCINO TOETIN, EVELYN Notably, the respondents did not participate in the proceedings before the Labor
LEONARDO, ELMER GLOCENDA, RUFO CUNAMAY, ROLANDOSAJOL, Arbiter except on April 19, 2001 and May 21, 2001 when Mr. Romulo Pacia, Jr.
ROLANDO ABUCAYON, JENNIFER NATIVIDAD, MARITESS TORION, appeared on the respondents’ behalf.5 The respondents’ counsel also
ARMANDO LONZAGA, RIZAL GELLIDO, EVIRDE HAQUE,1 MYRNA VINAS, appeared in a preliminary mandatory conference on July 5, 2001.6 However,
RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, RENATO RODREGO, NENA ABINA, the respondents neither filed any position paper nor proffered pieces of evidence
EMALYN OLIVEROS, LOUIE ILAGAN, JOEL ENTIG, ARNEL ARANETA, in their defense despite their knowledge of the pendency of the case.
BENJAMIN COSE, WELITO LOON and WILLIAM ALIPAO, Petitioners,
vs. The Labor Arbiter’s Ruling
POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER
and CARINA ALUMISIN,Respondents. In a decision7 dated March 15, 2002, Labor Arbiter (LA) Elias H. Salinas partially
ruled in favor of the petitioners. The LA awarded the petitioners salary
DECISION differential, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays. In awarding
these claims, the LA stated that the burden of proving the payment of these money
BRION, J.: claims rests with the employer. The LA also awarded attorney’s fees in favor of
the petitioners, pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code.8
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari,2 filed by petitioners Wilgen Loon,
Jerry Arcilla, Albert Pereye, Arnold Pereye, Edgardo Obose, Arnel Malaras, However, the LA denied the petitioners’ claims for backwages, overtime, holiday,
Patrocino Toetin, Evelyn Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando and premium pays. The LA observed that the petitioners failed to show that they
Sajol, Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion, Armando Lonzaga, rendered overtime work and worked on holidays and rest days without
Rizal Gellido, Evirde Haque, Myrna Vinas, Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato compensation. The LA further concluded that the petitioners cannot be declared to
Rodrego, Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel Entig, Arnel Araneta, have been dismissed from employment because they did not show any notice of
Benjamin Cose, Welito Loon, William Alipao (collectively, the petitioners), to termination of employment. They were also not barred from entering the
challenge the June 5, 2009 decision3 and the August 28, 2009 resolution4 of the respondents’ premises.
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95182.
The Proceedings before the NLRC
The Factual Antecedents
Both parties appealed the LA’s ruling with the National Labor Relations
Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services employed and Commission. The petitioners disputed the LA’s denial of their claim for backwages,
assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various Philippine Long overtime, holiday and premium pays. Meanwhile, the respondents questioned the
Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) offices in Metro Manila area. Subsequently, LA’s ruling on the ground that the LA did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
the petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against Power Master, Inc., Tri-C
General Services and their officers, the spouses Homer and Carina Alumisin The respondents insisted that they were not personally served with summons and
(collectively, the respondents). The petitioners alleged in their complaint that they other processes. They also claimed that they paid the petitioners minimum wages,
were not paid minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive service incentive leave and thirteenth month pays. As proofs, they attached
leave, and thirteenth month pays. They further averred that the respondents made photocopied and computerized copies of payroll sheets to their
them sign blank payroll sheets. On June 11, 2001, the petitioners amended their memorandum on appeal.9 They further maintained that the petitioners were
complaint and included illegal dismissal as their cause of action. They claimed that validly dismissed. They argued that the petitioners’ repeated defiance to their
 2

transfer to different workplaces and their violations of the company rules and process. It found that the respondents did not actually receive the LA’s processes.
regulations constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience. 10 It also admitted the respondents’ unverified supplemental appeal on the ground
that technicalities may be disregarded to serve the greater interest of substantial
On January 3, 2003, the respondents filed an unverified supplemental due process. Furthermore, the Rules of Court do not require the verification of a
appeal. They attached photocopied and computerized copies of list of supplemental pleading.
employees with automated teller machine (ATM) cards to the supplemental
appeal. This list also showed the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ The NLRC also vacated the LA’s awards of salary differential, thirteenth month
ATM cards.11 They also attached documentary evidence showing that the and service incentive leave pays. In so ruling, it gave weight to the pieces of
petitioners were dismissed for cause and had been accorded due process. evidence attached to the memorandum on appeal and the supplemental appeal. It
maintained that the absence of the petitioners’ signatures in the payrolls was not
On January 22, 2003, the petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and an indispensable factor for their authenticity. It pointed out that the payment of
Motion12 where they asked for the deletion of the supplemental appeal from the money claims was further evidenced by the list of employees with ATM cards. It
records because it allegedly suffered from infirmities. First, the supplemental also found that the petitioners’ signatures were not forged. It took judicial notice
appeal was not verified. Second, it was belatedly filed six months from the filing of that many people use at least two or more different signatures.
the respondents’ notice of appeal with memorandum on appeal. The petitioners
pointed out that they only agreed to the respondents’ filing of a responsive The NLRC further ruled that the petitioners were lawfully dismissed on grounds
pleading until December 18, 2002.13 Third¸ the attached documentary evidence on of serious misconduct and willful disobedience. It found that the petitioners
the supplemental appeal bore the petitioners’ forged signatures. failed to comply with various memoranda directing them to transfer to other
workplaces and to attend training seminars for the intended reorganization and
They reiterated these allegations in an Urgent Motion to Resolve Manifestation reshuffling.
and Motion (To Expunge from the Records Respondents’ Supplemental
Appeal, Reply and/or Rejoinder) dated January 31, 2003.14Subsequently, the The NLRC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated
petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation with Reiterating Motion to Strike-Off April 28, 2006.17 Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule
the Record Supplemental Appeal/Reply, Quitclaims and Spurious 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.18
Documents Attached to Respondents’ Appeal dated August 7, 2003.15 The
petitioners argued in this last motion that the payrolls should not be given The CA Ruling
probative value because they were the respondents’ fabrications. They reiterated
that the genuine payrolls bore their signatures, unlike the respondents’
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The CA held that the petitioners were afforded
photocopies of the payrolls. They also maintained that their signatures in the
substantive and procedural due process. Accordingly, the petitioners deliberately
respondents’ documents (which showed their receipt of thirteenth month pay) had
did not explain their side. Instead, they continuously resisted their transfer to other
been forged.
PLDT offices and violated company rules and regulations. It also upheld the
NLRC’s findings on the petitioners’ monetary claims.
The NLRC Ruling
The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated
In a resolution dated November 27, 2003, the NLRC partially ruled in favor of the August 28, 2009, prompting the petitioners to file the present petition.19
respondents.16 The NLRC affirmed the LA’s awards of holiday pay and
attorney’s fees. It also maintained that the LA acquired jurisdiction over the
The Petition
persons of the respondents through their voluntary appearance.
In the petition before this Court, the petitioners argue that the CA committed a
However, it allowed the respondents to submit pieces of evidence for the
reversible error when it did not find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
first time on appeal on the ground that they had been deprived of due
discretion. They reiterate their arguments before the lower tribunals and the CA in
 3

support of this conclusion. They also point out that the respondents posted a bond The respondents perfected their
from a surety that was not accredited by this Court and by the NLRC. In effect, the appeal with the NLRC because the
respondents failed to perfect their appeal before the NLRC. They further insist that revocation of the bonding company's
the NLRC should not have admitted the respondents’ unverified supplemental authority has a prospective
appeal.20 application

The Respondents’ Position Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "[i]n case of a judgment
involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only
In their Comments, the respondents stress that the petitioners only raised the upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
issue of the validity of the appeal bond for the first time on appeal. They also company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the
reiterate their arguments before the NLRC and the CA. They additionally submit monetary award in the judgment appealed from."
that the petitioners’ arguments have been fully passed upon and found
unmeritorious by the NLRC and the CA.21 Contrary to the respondents’ claim, the issue of the appeal bond’s validity may be
raised for the first time on appeal since its proper filing is a jurisdictional
The Issues requirement.22 The requirement that the appeal bond should be issued by an
accredited bonding company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of
requiring an appeal bond is to discourage the employers from using an appeal to
This case presents to us the following issues:
delay or evade the employees' just and lawful claims. It is intended to assure the
workers that they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal
1) Whether the CA erred when it did not find that the NLRC committed of the employer’s appeal.23
grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondents’ appeal;
In the present case, the respondents filed a surety bond issued by Security Pacific
a) Whether the respondents perfected their appeal before the Assurance Corporation (Security Pacific) on June 28, 2002. At that time, Security
NLRC; and Pacific was still an accredited bonding company. However, the NLRC revoked its
accreditation on February 16, 2003.24 Nonetheless, this subsequent revocation
b) Whether the NLRC properly allowed the respondents’ should not prejudice the respondents who relied on its then subsisting
supplemental appeal accreditation in good faith. In Del Rosario v. Philippine Journalists, Inc.,25 we ruled
that a bonding company’s revocation of authority is prospective in application.
2) Whether the respondents were estopped from submitting pieces of
evidence for the first time on appeal; However, the respondents should post a new bond issued by an accredited
bonding company in compliance with paragraph 4, Section 6, Rule 6 of the NLRC
3) Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and are thus entitled to Rules of Procedure. This provision states that "[a] cash or surety bond shall be
backwages; valid and effective from the date of deposit or posting, until the case is finally
decided, resolved or terminated or the award satisfied."
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential, overtime,
holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays; and The CA correctly ruled that the
NLRC properly gave due course to
5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees. the respondents’ supplemental
appeal
The Court’s Ruling
 4

The CA also correctly ruled that the NLRC properly gave due course to the A. The respondents failed to
respondents’ supplemental appeal. Neither the laws nor the rules require the adequately explain their delay
verification of the supplemental appeal.26 Furthermore, verification is a formal, not in the submission of evidence
a jurisdictional, requirement. It is mainly intended for the assurance that the
matters alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not of mere We cannot accept the respondents’ cavalier attitude in blatantly disregarding the
speculation.27 Also, a supplemental appeal is merely an addendum to the verified NLRC Rules of Procedure. The CA gravely erred when it overlooked that the
memorandum on appeal that was earlier filed in the present case; hence, the NLRC blindly admitted and arbitrarily gave probative value to the respondents’
requirement for verification has substantially been complied with. evidence despite their failure to adequately explain their delay in the submission of
evidence. Notably, the respondents’ delay was anchored on their assertion that
The respondents also timely filed their supplemental appeal on January 3, 2003. they were oblivious of the proceedings before the LA. However, the respondents
The records of the case show that the petitioners themselves agreed that the did not dispute the LA’s finding that Mr. Romulo Pacia, Jr. appeared on their behalf
pleading shall be filed until December 18, 2002. The NLRC further extended the on April 19, 2001 and May 21, 2001.32 The respondents also failed to contest the
filing of the supplemental pleading until January 3, 2003 upon the respondents’ petitioners’ assertion that the respondents’ counsel appeared in a preliminary
motion for extension. mandatory conference on July 5, 2001.33

A party may only adduce evidence Indeed, the NLRC capriciously and whimsically admitted and gave weight to the
for the first time on appeal if he respondents’ evidence despite its finding that they voluntarily appeared in the
adequately explains his delay in the compulsory arbitration proceedings. The NLRC blatantly disregarded the fact that
submission of evidence and he the respondents voluntarily opted not to participate, to adduce evidence in their
sufficiently proves the allegations defense and to file a position paper despite their knowledge of the pendency of the
sought to be proven proceedings before the LA. The respondents were also grossly negligent in not
informing the LA of the specific building unit where the respondents were
In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required. conducting their business and their counsel’s address despite their knowledge of
Time and again, we have allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on their non-receipt of the processes.34
appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice.28 Thus, we have
consistently supported the rule that labor officials should use all reasonable means B. The respondents failed to
to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to sufficiently prove the
technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process.29 allegations sought to be
proven
However, this liberal policy should still be subject to rules of reason and
fairplay. The liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) Furthermore, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the allegations sought to
a party should adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence; be proven. Why the respondents’ photocopied and computerized copies of
and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be documentary evidence were not presented at the earliest opportunity is a serious
proven.30 The reason for these requirements is that the liberal application of the question that lends credence to the petitioners’ claim that the respondents
rules before quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and fabricated the evidence for purposes of appeal. While we generally admit in
hamper the just resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a evidence and give probative value to photocopied documents in
license to disregard the rules of procedure.31 administrative proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication should
prompt the adverse party to present the original documents for
Guided by these principles, the CA grossly erred in ruling that the NLRC did not inspection.35 It was incumbent upon the respondents to present the originals,
commit grave abuse of discretion in arbitrarily admitting and giving weight to the especially in this case where the petitioners had submitted their specimen
respondents’ pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal. signatures. Instead, the respondents effectively deprived the petitioners of the
opportunity to examine and controvert the alleged spurious evidence by not
 5

adducing the originals. This Court is thus left with no option but to rule that the The petitioners are not entitled to
respondents’ failure to present the originals raises the presumption that evidence overtime and premium pays
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.36
However, the CA was correct in its finding that the petitioners failed to provide
It was also gross error for the CA to affirm the NLRC’s proposition that "[i]t is of sufficient factual basis for the award of overtime, and premium pays for holidays
common knowledge that there are many people who use at least two or more and rest days. The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay
different signatures."37 The NLRC cannot take judicial notice that many people use for holidays and rest days rests on the employee because these are not incurred in
at least two signatures, especially in this case where the petitioners themselves the normal course of business.43 In the present case, the petitioners failed to
disown the signatures in the respondents’ assailed documentary evidence. 38 The adduce any evidence that would show that they actually rendered service in
NLRC’s position is unwarranted and is patently unsupported by the law and excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that they in fact worked on
jurisprudence. holidays and rest days.

Viewed in these lights, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the employees. This The petitioners are entitled to
conclusion is consistent with the rule that the employer’s cause can only succeed attorney’s fees
on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the employee’s
evidence.39 The award of attorney’s fees is also warranted under the circumstances of this
case.1âwphi1 An employee is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to
The petitioners are entitled to ten percent (10%) of the amount of the wages in actions for unlawful withholding of
backwages wages.44

Based on the above considerations, we reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding As a final note, we observe that Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego
that the petitioners were terminated for just cause and were afforded procedural and Welito Loon are also named as petitioners in this case. However, we deny
due process. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for their petition for the reason that they were not part of the proceedings before the
dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer. The CA. Their failure to timely seek redress before the CA precludes this Court from
employer’s failure to discharge this burden results in the finding that the dismissal awarding them monetary claims.
is unjustified.40 This is exactly what happened in the present case.
All told, we find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting
The petitioners are entitled to salary and giving probative value to the respondents' evidence on appeal, which errors
differential, service incentive, the CA replicated when it upheld the NLRC rulings.
holiday, and thirteenth month pays
WHEREFORE, based on these premises, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
We also reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding that the petitioners are not entitled decision dated June 5, 2009, and the resolution dated August 28, 2009 of the
to salary differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays. As in Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 95182. This case is REMANDED to the Labor
illegal dismissal cases, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant Arbiter for the sole purpose of computing petitioners' (Wilgen Loon, Jerry Arcilla,
to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment of these money Albert Pereye, Arnold Pereye, Edgardo Obose, Arnel Malaras, Patrocino Toetin,
claims.41 The rationale for this rule is that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, Evelyn Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol, Rolando
records, remittances and other similar documents – which will show that Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion, Ammndo Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido,
differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid – Evirdly Haque, Myrna Vinas, Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel
are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the Entig, Amel Araneta, Benjamin Cose and William Alipao) full backwages
employer.42 (computed from the date of their respective dismissals up to the finality of this
decision) and their salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday, thirteenth
 6

month pays, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the withheld
wages. The respondents are further directed to immediately post a satisfactory
bond conditioned on the satisfaction of the awards affirmed in this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION