Case Digest (G.R. No. 153660)
Facts:
Prudencio Bantolino, Nestor Romero, Nilo Espina, Eddie Ladica, Arman Queling, Rolando Nieto, Ricardo Bartolome, Eluver Garcia, Eduardo Garcia and Nelson Manalastas v. Coca‑Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 153660, June 10, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.On 15 February 1995 sixty‑two (62) employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against Coca‑Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and certain corporate officers and service contractors, alleging deprivation of security of tenure and perpetuation of the "Cabo System," and praying for reinstatement with full back wages and declaration of regular employment. For failure to prosecute (not attending mandatory conferences or submitting affidavits) fifty‑two (52) complainants were dismissed; ten (10) remained and were the subject of clarificatory hearings before Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera.
The remaining complainants (petitioners herein) alleged they served as route helpers, bottle segregators and related positions for Coca‑Cola, and that replacement and exclusion from company premises constituted illegal dismissal. Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action, contending that Lipercon Services, People’s Specialist Services and Interim Services were the actual employers as independent contractors, and that corporate officers were not personally liable.
On 29 May 1998 the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering reinstatement of the complainants as regular employees and awarding aggregate back wages (P1,810,244.00, except Prudencio Bantolino whose back wages awaited proof of dismissal). The NLRC, Second Division, affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a decision promulgated 30 March 2001; a subsequent NLRC resolution of 17 July 2001 denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed there was an employer‑employee relationship but held that the affidavits of seven complainants (including Bantolino, Romero and Espina) lacked probative value because those affiants did not affirm their affidavits in court nor undergo cross‑examination; accordingly, it dismissed their complaints for lack of sufficient evidence, while sustaining awards for three complainants who were cross‑examined. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals and reinstatement of the NLRC decision.
The pivotal controversy was whether affidavits in labor proceedings may be given probative weight despite the affiants’ no...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly exclude the affidavits of certain complainants for lack of in‑court affirmation and cross‑examination, thereby justifying dismissal of their claims?
- Is petitioner Nestor Romero precluded from relief by a Compromise Agreement, Release, Waiver and Quitclaim he executed with respondent?
- Does the failure of most petitioners to sign the petition’s verification and certification of non‑forum shopping r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)