GR 189404; (December, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189404 ; December 11, 2013
WILGEN LOON, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER and CARINA ALUMISIN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, employed as janitors and leadsmen for respondents at various PLDT offices, filed a complaint for monetary claims alleging non-payment of minimum wages, overtime, holiday pay, and other benefits. They later amended the complaint to include illegal dismissal, claiming they were relieved in retaliation for filing the suit. The respondents largely failed to participate in the Labor Arbiter (LA) proceedings, not filing any position paper or evidence. The LA partially granted the monetary claims, citing the employer’s burden to prove payment, but denied claims for overtime and illegal dismissal due to petitioners’ lack of proof.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. For the first time on appeal, the respondents submitted payroll sheets and other documents to refute the claims and justify dismissal for cause. The petitioners moved to expunge these documents, arguing they were belated, unverified, and contained forged signatures. The NLRC admitted the evidence, reversed the LA on the overtime claims, and found the dismissals valid. The CA affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in admitting and giving credence to the respondents’ documentary evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and NLRC, reinstating the LA’s decision with modification. The legal logic is anchored on due process and procedural rules in labor cases. While technical rules are relaxed, fundamental fairness is not. The respondents’ wholesale failure to participate before the LA, despite notice, constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence. Allowing them to belatedly submit evidence on appeal deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to examine and rebut this evidence at the proper forum, violating petitioners’ right to due process.
The Court emphasized that the burden of proof for payment of wages and validity of dismissal rests with the employer. By not submitting any evidence before the LA, the respondents failed to discharge this burden. The NLRC’s act of accepting the belated evidence and reversing the LA based thereon constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it rewarded the respondents’ negligence and prejudiced the petitioners. The payroll documents, being self-serving and contested as forgeries, could not overturn the LA’s findings which were based on the evidence properly presented. Consequently, the awards for salary differentials, service incentive leave, and 13th month pay were reinstated, and the dismissals were declared illegal for lack of substantive and procedural due process, warranting an award of backwages.