Posted by: Von Derek on 19 July 2018
FACTS:
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a janitorial and messengerial service provider, and assigned to E PCI Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services were cut off when EPCI decided to bid out the janitorial and messengerial jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al then filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that they are regular employees of PCI, and HI has no authority to dismiss them.
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a janitorial and messengerial service provider, and assigned to E PCI Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services were cut off when EPCI decided to bid out the janitorial and messengerial jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al then filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that they are regular employees of PCI, and HI has no authority to dismiss them.
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a janitorial and messengerial service provider, and assigned to E PCI Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services were cut off when EPCI decided to bid out the janitorial and messengerial jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al then filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that they are regular employees of PCI, and HI has no authority to dismiss them.
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?
HELD:
The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.
The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute illegal dismissal.
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?
The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.
The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute illegal dismissal.
The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.
The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute illegal dismissal.
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?
The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.
The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute illegal dismissal.
