G.R. No. 189404 - Loon vs. Power Master, Inc.

The respondents, Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services, employed the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) offices in Metro Manila.
The petitioners initially filed a complaint for money claims alleging non-payment of minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays. They also complained that the respondents compelled them to sign blank payroll sheets.
On June 11, 2001, the petitioners amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal, alleging that the respondents relieved them of duty in retaliation for their earlier complaint.
The respondents participated minimally in the Labor Arbiter proceedings, appearing only on select dates (April 19, 2001; May 21, 2001; and during a preliminary mandatory conference on July 5, 2001) without filing a proper position paper or presenting definitive evidence.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision on March 15, 2002, partially ruling in favor of the petitioners by awarding salary differential, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays. The LA emphasized that the burden to prove payment rested with the employer.
The LA denied the petitioners’ claims for backwages, overtime, holiday, and premium pays, noting insufficient evidence of overtime work or work on holidays and rest days, and dismissed the claim of illegal dismissal due to the absence of a termination notice.
Both parties appealed the LA’s ruling to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The petitioners objected to the denial of certain monetary claims, while the respondents questioned the LA’s jurisdiction over them, citing non-service of summons and alleging that the petitioners were validly dismissed for serious misconduct and willful disobedience.
The respondents also filed an unverified supplemental appeal on January 3, 2003, attaching photocopied and computerized documents (including a list of employees with ATM cards) to support their claims, despite these documents allegedly containing forged signatures.
In a subsequent series of motions (filed on January 22, 2003; January 31, 2003; and August 7, 2003), the petitioners sought the expunction of the supplemental appeal and associated documents on the grounds that they were late filed, unverified, and contained forged signatures.

The NLRC, in its November 27, 2003 resolution, partially ruled in favor of the respondents by:

Affirming the LA’s awards of holiday pay and attorney’s fees.
Vacating the LA’s awards of salary differential, thirteenth month, and service incentive leave pays based on documentary evidence submitted.
Determining that the petitioners were legally dismissed for serious misconduct and willful disobedience due to repeated defiance to transfer orders, non-attendance in training seminars, and violations of company rules.

The petitioners were afforded substantive and procedural due process.
The petitioners’ resistance to transfer and violation of company rules justified their dismissal.
The respondents’ supplemental appeal and pieces of evidence, though submitted for the first time on appeal, were admissible.

Following these resolutions, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s findings and arguing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC, particularly concerning the admission and evaluation of the respondents’ late-submitted evidence, as well as issues related to the appeal bond.

The CA erred for not recognizing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in accepting the respondents’ evidence despite procedural lapses.
The respondents perfected their appeal bond based on a previously accredited bonding company, despite its later revocation.
The respondents should not have been allowed to submit new pieces of evidence on appeal without proper explanation for the delay.

The respondents, in their comments, reiterated earlier arguments, maintaining that:

The petitioners only raised the issue of the appeal bond’s validity at the appellate level.
All issues, including the validity of the supplemental appeal and the sufficiency of evidence to justify the dismissal, had already been examined and found unmeritorious at the NLRC and CA levels.

Whether the CA erred in not finding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by:

Giving due course to the respondents’ supplemental appeal despite it being unverified and late filed.
Admitting and attributing probative value to pieces of evidence submitted for the first time on appeal without adequate explanation for the delay.

Whether the respondents perfected their appeal before the NLRC by filing an appeal bond that was issued by an accredited bonding company, notwithstanding the bonding company’s subsequent revocation of accreditation.

Whether the respondents are estopped from submitting evidence on appeal due to their failure to timely explain the delay in submission and comply with procedural requirements.

Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and, accordingly, are entitled to backwages and other monetary awards, including the reversal of the NLRC and CA’s findings on valid dismissal.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to additional wage claims such as salary differential, service incentive leave, holiday, and thirteenth month pays (noting that overtime and premium pays were not sufficiently proven).

Whether the petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees under Article 111 of the Labor Code.