Posted by: Rianne Fernandez
FACTS:
Petitioner Cindy and Lynsy Garment is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of brassieres. Virginia Pula Sy is the owner and operator, while petitioner Kil Huan Sy is her husband, who assists in the management of the business. Respondents; Erna N. Batalla, Cristina P. King and Susan N. Caracas were employed as promo girls. They were assigned to various outlets and were members of the National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM). They were offered separation pay as they were notified they were going to be laid off. The following day, private respondents filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, nonpayment of labor standards benefits and non-coverage under the Social Security Law but later amended the complaint in which the claim for underpayment of wages was deleted and instead an allegation of unfair labor practice was added. Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro, rendered a decision granting the claims of private respondents, including that for underpayment, but excluding the claims for unfair labor practice, nonpayment of legal holiday pay and Social Security benefits. Thus this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to pass upon the claim for underpayment of wages.
HELD:
As the Solicitor General points out, although the claim for salary differential was not reproduced in the amended complaint, nevertheless in the joint affidavit of private respondents attached to the amended complaint, the claim was clearly set forth. At the very least, therefore, there is doubt whether private respondent intended to delete this claim. The omission could have been inadvertent.
In any event, the joint affidavit attached to the amended complaint, which clearly set forth private respondents claim for salary differential, constituted their evidence. Since its presentation was not objected to by petitioners, the labor arbiter correctly considered it in deciding the case. Thus, Rule 10, 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:y
Rule 10, 5. Amendment to conform to an authorized presentation of evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they have been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
FACTS:
Petitioner Cindy and Lynsy Garment is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of brassieres. Virginia Pula Sy is the owner and operator, while petitioner Kil Huan Sy is her husband, who assists in the management of the business. Respondents; Erna N. Batalla, Cristina P. King and Susan N. Caracas were employed as promo girls. They were assigned to various outlets and were members of the National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM). They were offered separation pay as they were notified they were going to be laid off. The following day, private respondents filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, nonpayment of labor standards benefits and non-coverage under the Social Security Law but later amended the complaint in which the claim for underpayment of wages was deleted and instead an allegation of unfair labor practice was added. Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro, rendered a decision granting the claims of private respondents, including that for underpayment, but excluding the claims for unfair labor practice, nonpayment of legal holiday pay and Social Security benefits. Thus this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to pass upon the claim for underpayment of wages.
HELD:
As the Solicitor General points out, although the claim for salary differential was not reproduced in the amended complaint, nevertheless in the joint affidavit of private respondents attached to the amended complaint, the claim was clearly set forth. At the very least, therefore, there is doubt whether private respondent intended to delete this claim. The omission could have been inadvertent.
In any event, the joint affidavit attached to the amended complaint, which clearly set forth private respondents claim for salary differential, constituted their evidence. Since its presentation was not objected to by petitioners, the labor arbiter correctly considered it in deciding the case. Thus, Rule 10, 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:y
Rule 10, 5. Amendment to conform to an authorized presentation of evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they have been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
