Case Digest (G.R. No. 189404)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 189404)
Facts:
Loon et al. v. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners — former janitors and leadsmen employed by Power Master, Inc. and Tri‑C General Services (and by extension the spouses Homer and Carina Alumisin, the respondents) — filed a complaint for money claims before the Labor Arbiter, alleging unpaid minimum wages, overtime, holiday and premium pay, service incentive leave, thirteenth month pay, and that the respondents made them sign blank payrolls. On June 11, 2001 they amended to add illegal dismissal, alleging they were relieved from service in retaliation for filing the original complaint.
Labor Arbiter Elias H. Salinas issued a decision on March 15, 2002 partially in favor of the petitioners: awarding salary differential, service incentive leave and thirteenth month pay, and attorneys’ fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code, but denying backwages and claims for overtime, holiday and premium pay and finding no proof of dismissal because there was no notice of termination and the petitioners remained free to enter respondents’ premises.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. The respondents challenged the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction over their persons and submitted, for the first time on appeal, photocopied/computerized payrolls and an ATM list purporting to show payments and dismissals; they had earlier filed a surety bond with Security Pacific Assurance Corporation on June 28, 2002. The petitioners countered that the supplemental appeal was unverified, belated, and that the respondents’ documents bore forged signatures.
In a resolution dated November 27, 2003, the NLRC affirmed some awards (holiday pay, attorneys’ fees), found the Labor Arbiter had acquired jurisdiction by voluntary appearance, admitted the respondents’ belated evidence and unverified supplemental appeal in the interest of substantial due process, vacated the Labor Arbiter’s awards of salary differential, thirteenth month and service incentive leave, and held that the petitioners were validly dismissed for serious misconduct and willful disobedience. The NLRC denied reconsideration on April 28, 2006.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC in a June 5, 2009 decision and denied reconsideration in an August 28, 2009 resolution. The petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court (filed October 23, 2009), challenging principally (a) the NLRC’s reception and reliance on respondents’ evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, (b) the respondents’ purported failure to perfect their appeal because their surety (Security Pacific) was later de‑accredited, and (c) the admission of an unverified supplemental appeal.
Before the Court, respondents defended the NLRC and CA rulings and argued the petitioners waived objections to the bond and to the supplemental appeal by raising them late. The Court’s records also reflected that the respondents’ counsel had appeared before the Labor Arbiter on April 19 and May 21, 2001 and in a preliminary mandatory conference on July 5, 2001; Security Pacific’s accreditation was revoked on February 16, 2003.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondents’ appeal; specifically,
- did the respondents perfect their appeal before the NLRC despite using a surety later de‑accredited, and
- did the NLRC properly allow the respondents’ supplemental appeal?
- Were the respondents estopped from submitting pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal (i.e., did the NLRC commit grave abuse in admitting and giving probative value to that evidence)?
- Were the petitioners illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to backwages?
- Are the petitioners entitled to salary differential, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays?
- Are the petitioners entitled to attorneys’ fees?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)