Case Digest (G.R. No. 207354)
Facts:
Charlie Hubilla, et al. v. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., et al., G.R. No. 207354, January 10, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are a large group of former employees of the Novo Jeans retail/manufacturing operations (collectively, petitioners). Respondents are the corporate and individual proprietors and operators of the Novo Jeans business (collectively, respondents). The dispute arose after several petitioners went on Raffy Tulfo’s radio program in May–June 2010 to air labor grievances and were thereafter allegedly prevented from entering the Novo Jeans stores where they worked.
After the radio airing petitioners were referred to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Camanava office. Petitioners contend that on June 7, 2010 they were barred from entering their workplaces and that although respondents sent a “show cause” letter the next day, the employees were in truth already dismissed; they sent a demand letter on July 19, 2010 but no settlement was reached. Petitioners subsequently withdrew before DOLE and filed complaints with the Labor Arbiter alleging illegal dismissal.
Respondents insisted that the petitioners voluntarily severed their employment (abandonment/voluntary resignation) for having publicly aired grievances, and that the alleged DOLE withdrawal procedures were not properly granted. Respondents attached what they described as Notices of Termination/First Notice of Termination but did not present receiving copies or acknowledgement receipts.
On May 31, 2011, Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni dismissed the consolidated complaints for lack of merit and for forum-shopping, finding voluntary termination because the radio airing gave the employees reason not to report for work. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On June 25, 2012 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and found illegal dismissal, concluding that the parties’ allegations were unsubstantiated and therefore in equipoise, and applying the labor rule that doubts are resolved for the employee; it ordered backwages, separation pay and attorney’s fees. The NLRC denied reconsideration in an August 24, 2012 Resolution.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 25, 2013 the CA (Fifteenth Division) reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaints, finding that respondents’ counsel substantially complied with verification requirements and that respondents had presented proof (sample Notices) that undercut the illegal-dismissal claim; the CA held the equipoise rule inapplicable because the evidence favored respondents. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on May 30, 2013.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court (Rollo, lodged pleadings, memoranda). They argued, inter alia, that the CA improperly performed factual re-examination in a certiorari petition, that respondents’ verification was invalid because counsel swore only to facts “relayed to me by my clients,” and that the Notices were not proven to have been received. Respondents defended the CA’s review, urged substantial...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court of Appeals, in a petition for certiorari, review and re-assess the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission?
- Is a verification that avers the pleading is “based upon facts relayed to me by my clients” a valid verification under Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, and is a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel valid for the various respondent entities?
- Were petitioners illegally dismissed such that they are entitled to reinsta...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)