Facts:

The case involves petitioners Cirilo Barnachea, Paulino Gonzales, Bernardo Gonzales, and Ricardo Gorospe against respondents Hon. Emiliano C. Tabigne and Sin Hap Lee & Co. The events leading to this case began with two complaints filed in the Court of Industrial Relations. The first complaint, Case 1259-V, was initiated by the National Federation of Labor Unions and/or Benita Bulaon against Sin Hap Hua & Co., while the second complaint, Case 1260-V, was filed by the National Labor Union and/or Cirilo Barnachea against Sin Hap Lee & Co. Both companies are sister companies. With the consent of the parties and the approval of the court, these cases were jointly tried before a commissioner appointed by the court. On October 19, 1963, Judge Jose S. Bautista rendered a judgment dismissing Case 1259-V and granting the petition for overtime pay in Case 1260-V, directing the chief of the examining division to compute the necessary amounts and submit a report. The decision ...

Facts:

The case involves petitioners who claimed wage differentials and overtime compensation for work rendered between 1956 and 1959. Originally, two complaints were consolidated in the Court of Industrial Relations with the participation of sister companies as respondents. One case (1259‑V) was dismissed, while in the other (1260‑V) the presiding judge initially granted overtime pay. However, upon a motion for reconsideration by the respondent in Case 1260‑V, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc reversed the initial favorable ruling, dismissing the claim for overtime pay “for lack of substantial evidence.” The en banc decision relied heavily on documentary evidence—time records and payrolls—that showed overtime work duly recorded and compensated, and which petitioners themselves had signed without contesting any inaccuracies at the time. In contrast, the petitioners’ oral testimonies were conflicting regarding the entries in the payrolls, with some witnesses asserting that the documents had no entries at the moment of their signing, while others admitted ignorance of the entries but nevertheless affixed their signatures.

Issue:

The primary issue was whether the documented time records and payrolls, which indicated that overtime work was rendered and duly compensated, constituted substantial evidence to support the court’s findings in the face of conflicting oral testimonies. Additionally, the case raised the question of whether a trial court's finding, when supported by a preponderance of substantial documentary evidence, should be disturbed despite contradictory witness accounts.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)