Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL TENTH DIVISION

FILIPINAS-GLOBAL MULTI
SERVICES INC., ALHABAS TRADE
TRASPORTATION AND
CONTRACTING CO., LTD., MARCUS
A.C. VILLANUEVA
Petitioner,

-versus- C.A. G.R. SP NO. 164938

CIRILO DELA CRUZ NATIVIDAD AND

REYNALDO P. DIOSANTA., ET. AL
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

COMMENT
TO THE REPLY

RESPONDENTS, by and through the undersigned counsel, most

respectfully alleged unto this Honorable Court of Appeals that:

1. The Petitioner, in its Reply wishes to mislead this Honorable Court and
impress that it has complied the necessary requirements concerning the
perfection of the Petition for Certiorari that they have filed however, such
allegations runs contrary to existing law, jurisprudence and available
records on hand.

PETITIONER FAILED TO FURNISH

RESPONDENTS A COPY OF THE PETITION IT
HAS FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS

2. On the first issue Petitioner’s claimed that they have furnished the
Petition for Certiorari marked as Annex “K” in their Reply to herein
counsel’s previous address at Unit 710 Villa Alicia III Condominium P.
Tuazon Blvd., Cubao Quezon City.

3. However, contrary to the allegations of the Petitioner, the latter was made
fully aware of the changes in the address as early as when the Petitioner
filed its Appeal, as herein Respondents in the Comment Opposition with
Manifestation dated September 19, 2020 it has filed, duly informed the
Petitioner of the said changes in its address to wit:
 “1. It is most humbly manifested before this honorable office that the
undersigned counsel has changes its office address and on account of the
foregoing all notices, pleadings, orders decisions or any documents
should now be served to the address indicated herein below:

“14th St. Unit 34 Galleria Townhomes Brgy. Damayang Lagi New Manila
Quezon City.”

A Copy of the foregoing Comment Opposition with Manifestation is

hereon to attached as Annex 1 and made an integral part hereof.

4. In fact, Notice of Resolution issued by the Sixth Division of the National

Labor Relations Commission the address above stated of herein Counsel
is likewise duly reflected. A copy of which is hereunto attached as Annex
“2”.

5. Hence, it is very clear and apparent that the Petitioner is not only
negligent in sending out the aforesaid Petition for Certiorari to the old
address of herein Counsel, but is likewise in bad faith for despite
knowing that the same was erroneous still proceeded in sending out the
said Petition knowing fully well that it will not be received by the
undersigned Counsel.

6. Petitioner cannot now feign ignorance or claim that it was unaware of

such changes if the address of herein counsel and nor claim that a
manifestation was duly submitted before the National Labor Relations
Commission.

7. Hence, as duly alleged by the Petitioner, in paragraph 7, “it is inexcusable

negligence for an attorney of record to notify that the Court of his change
in address…”1 but it is likewise the correlative duty of the opposing
counsel to take note of such changes failing such can likewise be
construed as inexcusable negligence.

THE COMMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

WAS UNDATED

8. As to the issue of the aforesaid undated Comment, this Honorable Court

does not prescribe and standard format or requirements with regard to the
Comments to be filed, moreover, upon close perusal of the Comment
filed by herein Respondent it is clearly apparent the date upon which is
has been filed before this Honorable Court, the absence of date will not
unduly prejudice or affect the rights of herein Petitioner considering that
the material allegations are properly pleaded in the body of the said
Comment.

1
GR No. L-334488, September 17, 1980

2
9. Moreover, considering that the Petitioners have utterly failed to perfect
the filing of their Petition for Certiorari, technically there is no Comment
required to be filed by herein Respondents.

10.Considering, that no substantial rights are affected by the fact that the
foregoing comment was undated, it is most humbly submitted that a
liberal application of the Rules is warranted at the case at bar.

11.The persnickety attitude of herein Petitioner stems from the fact that it
was them who failed to comply with the requirements of the law and their
Petition for Certiorari is utterly without basis.

RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PERFECT

THE APPEAL

12. At the case at bar, Petitioner has failed to post the required Bond
mandated by the Rules necessary for the perfection of its Appeal, hence
the foregoing Petition for Certiorari filed by the Petitioner is highly
improper as the latter is never a remedy for a lost Appeal.

13.Petitioner predicates its claim that its appeal may be perfected by reason
that the latter belatedly posted a Manager’s Check in the amount of Php
200,000 as partial compliance with the requirement of the bond, the
judgement award being in the amount Php 1,116,783.72.

14.However, the latter’s reliance is misplaced considering that at the time

the Motion for Reduction of Bond was filed, it was likewise imperative
upon the Petitioner to post the corresponding amount if not equal to the
judgment award above stated or at the very least the reduced amount
prayed for by the latter.

15.However, as can be gleaned from the facts of the case, the Petitioner did
not post any bond at the time he filed his Appeal but instead opted to wait
for two more days.

16.Considering the fact that not only was the Petitioner posting a bond less
than the judgment award, the latter was also doing it beyond the
reglementary periods provided for in perfecting the appeal, that being
said the Appeal was never perfected.

THERE IS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

COMMITTED BY THE NLRC

17.At the case at bar, the Petitioner wishes to attribute Grave Abuse of
Discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission for
allegedly relying on the bank statements attached by the Respondents in
its Position Paper for being written in Arabic.

3
18.However, assuming without admitting that the above allegation holds
ground the fact still remains that the burden of proving payment of
salaries and wages falls on the Employer.

19.At the case at bar the ATM Receipts (Banks Statements) provided by the
Respondents serves as substantial evidence as to the amount of payments
they have received from the Petitioner, when the latter presented the
same for the appreciation of the NLRC, the burden of proof was never
shifted and in fact became even greater as the Respondents were showing
proof that they have not been paid properly.

20.Petitioner on the other hand, never provided any substantial evidence to

prove payment but instead merely made bare allegations regarding the
same.

21.Hence, it is improper for the Petitioner to rely on the weakness of the

evidence presented by the Respondent when the latter has not even
presented a modicum of evidence warranting a different finding to the
contrary.

22. In this Regard, the foregoing Petition for Certiorari filed by herein
Petitioner should not be given due course, there being no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission when it
rendered the foregoing Resolution, as well as the fact that the foregoing
Petition was never perfected for failure to furnish the Respondents with a
copy of the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court of Appeals, that the foregoing petition be dismissed
for lack of merit, for failure to be perfected and that no injunctive relief be
given to the Petitioner and that the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
be affirmed in toto.

Moreover, Respondents most humbly pray that this Honorable Court

direct the Petitioner to furnish the undersigned counsel and Respondents
copies of the said Petition.

Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the
foregoing circumstances are likewise equally prayed for. 

November 9, 2020 Manila for Quezon City

ATTY. ZEUS IZZY YEE

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
4
 14TH ST. UNIT 34 GALLERIA TOWNHOMES
BRGY. DAMAYANG LAGI, NEW MANILA
QUEZON CITY
IBP LIFETIME NO. 011533, 2/5/2013/Q.C.
PTR NO. 9265045 JANUARY 9, 2020
ROLL NO. 59230
MCLE COMP #VI-0014968

Copy furnished:

FILIPINAS GLOBAL MULTI SERVICES INC.

STAT A-1112 STATE CONDOMINIUM V
452 EDSA GUADALUPE
MAKATI CITY

ATTY. MARCUS VILLANUEVA

6TH FLOOR G.E. ANTONIO BUILDING
J. BOCOBO ST. COR. T.M. KALAW
ERMITA, MANILA

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Due to distance and lack of messengerial services, the service of the

foregoing pleading was made by registered mail in lieu of the preferred
mode of personal service.

ZEUS IZZY YEE