Motion for Recon - Soriano Et.al.

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment NATIONAL NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS RELATIONS COMMISSION National Capital Region Quezon City

SECOND DIVISION  ARMANDO SAPITULA SORIANO, SORIANO, et al,   Compla!nant", NLRC CA NO NO #$%&&'&&(%#)*)+ NLRC NCR CASE NO NCR%&%

-versus-

&-$$%#)

.ONE/BARN M0T1 2 BRAND 3 LI4EST/LE 2 S/NER1/ SOURCIN1 2 #+ DE5TER D/ $+ PETER .UAN1 '+ 6EN7EL ORALLO,   Re"pondent" 8%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%8 

MOTION 4OR RECONSIDERATION RECONSIDERATION

Complain Complainant, ant,  Armando S Sor!ano, 6o9n .arr!" A

N:;e<, Erne"to T Bend!llo, Ant9ony D Ar=:ero and Den!!" R

Laro
thro throug ugh h

the the

unde unders rsig igne ned d

Publ Public ic

 Attorney  Attorney,, and unto this onorable onorable Commission, Commission, most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of its !ecision pro promulga lgated on "arch #$, #$, %&$' %&$',, cop copy of (hic hich (as received by the Complainant-Appellants on April $), %$', the dispositive portion of (hich provides*

1

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Our assailed January , !"#  Decision is $ET A$%DE. The Octo&er ',  !"' (a&or Ar&iter)s Decision is MOD%*%ED in that the a+ard for salary dierentials are re-computed as follo+s ". Anthony Ar/uerro  0'11.!!2 3 hours 4 #3.#  0#3.# 5 6#.!!.!! 4 6.# 7 '# hours 4 ",!'1.#  . Ernesto 8endillo  0 #3.# 5 6".# 4 9.!! 7 #1 hours 4 ",#".!! 6. Dennis (ano:a  0 #3.# 5 63.#! 4 ";.9# 7 6; hours 4 99!.#  '. John
NATURE AND TIMELINESS  O4 T.E MOTION 4OR RECONSIDERATION Complainants received the notice of +udgment!ecision on April $), %&$' (hich means that the last day to le an appeal falls on April %, %&$'. /he complainant is hereby ling this present "otion for Reconsideration, (ithin $&calendar days, provided under the rules.

2

T.E PARTIES Complainant-Appellant in the instant case are all 0ilipinos and all of legal age, and residents of* $.

 Armando S Sor!ano 1 %' !ayap 2treet,

%.

3estern 4icutan, /aguig City, "etro "anila5  6o9n .arr!" A N:;e< 1 6one #, 7o(er 2ta.  Ana, 4arangay 2un 8alley, Para9a:ue City, "etro "anila5

#.

Erne"to T Bend!llo 1 %' !ayap 2treet,

;.

3estern 4icutan, /aguig City, "etro "anila5  Ant9ony D Ar=:ero - 6one #, 7o(er 2ta. Ana, 4arangay 2un 8alley, Para9a:ue City, "etro "anila5

'.

Den!!" R Laro
3here they may be served (ith notices, orders and other processes of this onorable Commission at their residential addresses indicated above. Respondent-Appellee .oney Barn Mar>et!n? is a

LOCAL RECRUITMENT A1ENC/  duly organized and e=isting in accordance (ith Philippine la(s located at >nit 'A Cro(n /o(er $$#; 2oler 2treet, 4inondo, "anila. ?ts o@icers

and

employees

of

respondent

oney

4arn

"ar
1ROUNDS 4OR T.E MOTION 4OR RECONSIDERATION 3

 @IT. ALL DUE RESPECT, T.E .ONORABLE COMMISSION 1RAVEL/ ERRED DISRE1ARDIN1 AND MISAPPRECIATIN1 T.E 4ACT T.AT RESPONDENTS BELATEDL/ SUBMITTED AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON T.EIR MOTION 4OR RECONSIDERATION

DISCUSSIONS  As

regards

the

rst

and

only

error,

the

complainants most respectfully submit that the strict application of the presentation of additional or ne( evidence should have been applied. As can be gleaned from the

"arch

#$,

%&$'

!ecision,

even

the

onorable

Commission agrees, as seen in the body of such decision* “The proper time for su&mission of e=idence is &efore the (a&or Ar&iter. (i>e+ise, the appropriate time for /uestionin? the authenticity  of the opponent)s e=idence should &e made at the =ery @rst opportunity ?i=en to a party. That is,  from the time of receipt contained in their Reply, still &efore the (a&or Ar&iter. 8ur respondents >ept silent a&out it until the (a&or Ar&iter  rendered her assailed decision. “ 777 “Moreo=er, +e cannot &e more emphatic that the li&eral policy in la&or cases should still &e su&ect to rules of reason and fair play. The li&erality of procedural rules is /uali@ed &y t+o re/uirements B"C a party should ade/uately  e7plain and delay in the su&mission of e=idence and BC a party should suiciently pro=e the alle?ations sou?ht to &e pro=en. The reason for  4

these re/uirements is that the li&eral application of the rules &efore the /uasi-udicial a?encies cannot &e used to perpetuate inustice and hamper the ust resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on li&eral construction a license to disre?ard the rules of procedure. %n this case, respondents failed to meet the said re/uirements.

 A careful reading of the body of the "arch #$, %&$' !ecision, the onorable Commission patently disregarded the fact that the respondents belatedly presented evidence to support their claim.  As a general rule, the submission of ne( or additional evidence is not entirely prohibited by the rules. o(ever, in the instant case, the submission of ne( or additional evidence on appeal must be given strict application.  %ndeed, as a ?eneral rule, the su&mission of  additional e=idence &efore the N(R on appeal is not prohi&ited &y

the !!# Re=ised Rules of 

 0rocedure of the N(R. The N(R may consider  e=idence

such

as

documents

and

aida=its

su&mitted there+ith &y the parties for the @rst time on appeal. The su&mission of additional e=idence on appeal does not preudice the other  party for the latter may still su&mit countere=idence".

o(ever,

as

an

e8ept!on to ":9 r:le, the

submission of ne( or additional evidence on appeal is given strict applications. ?f all the (hile, ho(ever, the proof (as presented for the rst time on appeal (as in the companyBs 1

 NFD International Manning Agents vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 11629 5

possession and it o@ered no val.id e=cuse for its nonsubmission to the 7abor Arbiter, the same could no longer be presented for the rst time on appeal (ith the N7RC. %  As held in a num&er of cases  %n Spouses Santos v. NLRC, .R. No. !"#$%%. &u'( "), !$$*. The $upreme ourt did not allo+ its admission for the @rst time on appeal +ith the N(R &ecause all the +hile, this proof +as in the company)s possession and it oered no e7cuse for tis non-su&mission to the  (a&or Ar&iter. Due process cannot &e accorded to a ne?li?ent liti?ant if it +ill result in inustice to the other liti?ant +ho has &een dili?ent in o&ser=in? the rules of liti?ation. %t is true that, in some cases, the po+er of the N(R to admit additional e=idence on appeal has &een upheld, &ut in those cases, the failure to su&mit the e=idence +as usti@ed.  %n  An+e'es vs. Fenan-e. .R. No. !6#"!). &anua( ), "##7. %t held that Delay in the su&mission of e=idence should &e clearly  e7plained and should ade/uately pro=e the employer)s alle?ation of the cause for  termination. Thus, petitioner did not e7plain her  &elated su&mission of the aida=its of her  +itnesses on appeal +ith the N(R. onse/uently, her pleat that the aida=its &e admitted in the interest of truth, ustice and fair  play +as declared as lac>in? in merit.

?n  F/'/p/nas 0Pe12a3/4ate- '-+. S(stes, 8F/'s(stes9 :n4. v. NLRC .R. No. !5)5$, +here the company ne=er presented any contrary e=idence +hile the case +as pendin? +ith the (a&or Ar&iter, the $upreme ourt did not countenance the late su&mission of e=idence &y the company for the @rst time on 2

Chan. Labor Code o the !hili""ines. !age 291 6

appeal +ith the N(R. %t said that it should ha=e adduced its e=idence on the issue of ille?al dismissal &efore the (a&or Ar&iter. %t, ho+e=er,  failed to do so despite the opportunities ?i=en &y  the (a&or Ar&iter. %t +as only +hen an ad=erse +hen an ad=erse decision +as rendered a?ainst it &y the (a&or Ar&iter that it oered to su&mit its e=idence &efore the N(R refutin? the employees) complaint of ille?al dismissal. $uch a practice cannot &e tolerated for it +ill defeat the speedy administration of ustice in=ol=in? poor  +or>ers. Moreo=er, it smac>s of unfairness.

0or the sa
case,

the

respondent

still

fails

to

present

ompetent and adm!""!ble e!dene  As found in the Rules

on

Dvidence,

Rule

$%E,

2ection

#

provides*

 Admissi&ility of e=idence 5 E=idence admissi&le +hen it is rele=ant to the issue and is not e7clude &y the la+ or these rules.

6

0ollo(ing such provision, the la( specically mentions re:uirements for an evidence to be admissible. ence, as provided for in the 7abor Code, the evidence o@ered by the respondent should be held inadmissible as being e8l:ded

by t9e la ?n the instant case, 0iling beyond the reglementary period and only after the decision given by the 7abor Arbiter (ill render such evidence as e=cluded by la(. "oving no( on the admissibility of the pieces of  evidence presented by the respondents, ?t is incredulous that the onorable Commission actually stated* F==

3

 R#les o Co#rt. R#le 12, $e%tion &. 7

G *urther, e=en if +e admit these payrolls in the interest of ustice, still the same do not deser=e

+ei?ht

and

credence.

The

alle?ed

?enuine payrolls in themsel=es are du&ious as they do not contain a column for and the actual employee)s si?nature. The =ery essence of a payroll

is

the

employee)s

si?nature

as

an

ac>no+led?ment of the employees actual receipt of the amount stated therein, and si?nature

of

the

person

+ho

not the

prepared

and

chec>ed it. A&sent employee)s si?nature, the payroll is self-ser=in?.  FFF 

"oreover,

if

doubts e=ist bet(een

the

evidence

presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of   Hustice must be tilted in favor of the employee. 2ince it is a time honored rule that in controversies bet(een a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and (ritings should be resolved in the formerBs favor. ; ?ndispensable is the issue on onus pro&andi. As provided, he (ho alleges must prove the same. ?n the instant situation,

the

respondents

have not

adduced

evidence of great (eight to prove their theory and allegations. As the respondents (ere the ones (ho actually :uestioned

the

basis

for

the

computation

of

salary

di@erential they must be the one to prove the same. As the employer respondent has all the records and documents related to the case, it is not the duty of the complainant to 4

Parangan vs. NLRC, et.al., 289 SCRA 142 8

produce the said pieces of evidence. ?t is also their duty to produce such competent evidence. ?n

cases

involving

monetary

claims,

it

is

(ell-

entrenched that the burden of proving thereof rests on the employer.

'

/he positive testimony of a creditor may be su@icient of itself to sho( non-payment, even (hen met by indenite testimony of the debtor. 2imilarly, the testimony of the debtor may also be su@icient to sho( payment but (here such testimony is contradicted by the other party or by a disinterested (itness, the issue may be determined against the debtor since he has the burden of proof. /he testimony of the debtor creating merely an inference of payment (ill not be regarded as conclusive on that issue. ence, for failure to present evidence to prove payment, petitioners defaulted in their defense and in e@ect admitted the allegations of private respondents.

)

/he reason for the rule, is that the pertinent personnel les, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents 1 (hich (ill sho( that overtime, di@erentials, service incentive leave and other claims of (or


/he complainants must not be faulted on the nonsubmission of duly authenticated payrolls. /he complainants must not be made to su@er on such defect as such (as not  MC 'ngineering, In% vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 1(2&1(  G and M In%. vs. Cr#). G.R. No. 1(*(9+ 7  $aberola vs. $#are). G.R. No. 1+122 5

6

9

in the rst place their duty to prove or disprove. As seen, the complainants had e=erted all their diligent e@ort to provide for a pay roll to prove the salary di@erential due them. ence, it is no( the responsibility of the respondents to

provide

payrolls

duly

signed

by

them

and

the

complainants to prove all their claims.  Also, ?t can be read in the !ecision, that the onorable Commission rendered a decision, to (it* 777  Moreo=er, respondents did not /uestion the authenticity of the payrolls outri?ht in their   Reply. Rather, it +as only raised on appeal. $uch is a mere afterthou?ht +hich deser=es no consideration.  Non-production of the pertinent records &y  the company raises dou&t considerin? that it +as in total e7clusi=e control of such records. nfa=ora&le presumption that such records if  produced +ould &e ad=erse to company, applies.

F== /he body of the decision seemed to lean to(ards the non-appreciation of belatedly produced evidence. o(ever, reading further (ould divulge that (hich seems to be purportedly reproduced to ma
?n the end, the

onorable Commission still ruled that the computation of  the salary di@erential of the complainants should be

mod!ed 2uch misplaced appreciation of the issues raised by the respondent through their "otion for computation appears not to be supported by pieces of evidence on the basis for the computation. 10

PRA/ER   @.ERE4ORE,

premises

considered,

it

is

most

respectfully prayed unto this onourable 2econd !ivision that the !ecision rendered by the 2econd !ivision dated "arch

#$,

%&$'

(hich

granted

the

"otion

for

Reconsideration of the respondents, be reconsidered and reversed, and the !ecision dated %% +anuary %&$' issued by the onorable Commission a@irming the %; ctober %&$; !ecision of the onorable 7abor Arbiter be reinstated. ther reliefs Hust and e:uitable under the premises are li
"anila for Quezon City, April %#, %&$'

 A""!"ted by !epartment of +ustice P>47?C A//RNDIB2 00?CD  ;an/'a D/st/4t O
 ATT/ MARTIN IFI1O C ORTI7 Public Attorney ?? Roll of Attorneys No. 'J;;# "C7D Compliance No. 8-&&&)%'; ?4P no.* J'J&J @ice /el. No.* K&%L '%#-%&#&

E5PLANATION KPursuant to 2ection $$, Rule $# of the Rules of CourtL 11

2ervice of this "otion for Reconsideration (as made on Respondents via registered mail instead of  personal, due to distance, time and manpo(er constraints.

MARTIN IFI1O C ORTI7 Copy furnished*

 ATT/ CESAR B TUO7O Counsel for the Respondent >nit +, )th 0loor, Dl !orado, /o(er % California arden 2:uare, 7ibertad 2treet "andaluyong City, "etro "anila

12