Republic of the Philippines incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays.

ive leave, and thirteenth month pays. They further averred that the respondents made them
SUPREME COURT sign blank payroll sheets. On June 11, 2001, the petitioners amended their complaint and
Manila included illegal dismissal as their cause of action. They claimed that the respondents relieved
them from service in retaliation for the filing of their original complaint.
SECOND DIVISION
Notably, the respondents did not participate in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter except
G.R. No. 189404 December 11, 2013 on April 19, 2001 and May 21, 2001 when Mr. Romulo Pacia, Jr. appeared on the
respondents’ behalf.5 The respondents’ counsel also appeared in a preliminary mandatory
WILGEN LOON, JERRY ARCILLA, ALBERTPEREYE, ARNOLD PEREYE, conference on July 5, 2001.6 However, the respondents neither filed any position paper nor
proffered pieces of evidence in their defense despite their knowledge of the pendency of the case.
EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS, PATROCINO TOETIN, EVELYN
LEONARDO, ELMER GLOCENDA, RUFO CUNAMAY, ROLANDOSAJOL,
ROLANDO ABUCAYON, JENNIFER NATIVIDAD, MARITESS TORION, The Labor Arbiter’s Ruling
ARMANDO LONZAGA, RIZAL GELLIDO, EVIRDE HAQUE,1 MYRNA VINAS,
RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, RENATO RODREGO, NENA ABINA, In a decision7 dated March 15, 2002, Labor Arbiter (LA) Elias H. Salinas partially ruled in favor
EMALYN OLIVEROS, LOUIE ILAGAN, JOEL ENTIG, ARNEL ARANETA, of the petitioners. The LA awarded the petitioners salary differential, service incentive leave,
BENJAMIN COSE, WELITO LOON and WILLIAM ALIPAO, Petitioners, and thirteenth month pays. In awarding these claims, the LA stated that the burden of proving
vs. the payment of these money claims rests with the employer. The LA also awarded attorney’s
POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER and fees in favor of the petitioners, pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code. 8
CARINA ALUMISIN,Respondents.
However, the LA denied the petitioners’ claims for backwages, overtime, holiday, and
DECISION premium pays. The LA observed that the petitioners failed to show that they rendered overtime
work and worked on holidays and rest days without compensation. The LA further concluded
BRION, J.: that the petitioners cannot be declared to have been dismissed from employment because they
did not show any notice of termination of employment. They were also not barred from entering
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari,2 filed by petitioners Wilgen Loon, Jerry the respondents’ premises.
Arcilla, Albert Pereye, Arnold Pereye, Edgardo Obose, Arnel Malaras, Patrocino Toetin, Evelyn
Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol, Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer The Proceedings before the NLRC
Natividad, Maritess Torion, Armando Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido, Evirde Haque, Myrna Vinas,
Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego, Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Both parties appealed the LA’s ruling with the National Labor Relations Commission. The
Joel Entig, Arnel Araneta, Benjamin Cose, Welito Loon, William Alipao (collectively, petitioners disputed the LA’s denial of their claim for backwages, overtime, holiday and
the petitioners), to challenge the June 5, 2009 decision3 and the August 28, 2009 resolution4 of premium pays. Meanwhile, the respondents questioned the LA’s ruling on the ground that the
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 95182. LA did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons.

The Factual Antecedents The respondents insisted that they were not personally served with summons and other
processes. They also claimed that they paid the petitioners minimum wages, service incentive
Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services employed and assigned the leave and thirteenth month pays. As proofs, they attached photocopied and computerized
petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone copies of payroll sheets to their memorandum on appeal.9 They further maintained that the
Company (PLDT) offices in Metro Manila area. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint petitioners were validly dismissed. They argued that the petitioners’ repeated defiance to their
for money claims against Power Master, Inc., Tri-C General Services and their officers, the transfer to different workplaces and their violations of the company rules and regulations
spouses Homer and Carina Alumisin (collectively, the respondents). The petitioners alleged in constituted serious misconduct and willful disobedience.10
their complaint that they were not paid minimum wages, overtime, holiday, premium, service

1
On January 3, 2003, the respondents filed an unverified supplemental appeal. They attached petitioners’ signatures in the payrolls was not an indispensable factor for their authenticity. It
photocopied and computerized copies of list of employees with automated teller machine pointed out that the payment of money claims was further evidenced by the list of employees
(ATM) cards to the supplemental appeal. This list also showed the amounts allegedly with ATM cards. It also found that the petitioners’ signatures were not forged. It took judicial
deposited in the employees’ ATM cards.11 They also attached documentary evidence notice that many people use at least two or more different signatures.
showing that the petitioners were dismissed for cause and had been accorded due process.
The NLRC further ruled that the petitioners were lawfully dismissed on grounds of serious
On January 22, 2003, the petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion12 where they misconduct and willful disobedience. It found that the petitioners failed to comply with
asked for the deletion of the supplemental appeal from the records because it allegedly suffered various memoranda directing them to transfer to other workplaces and to attend training
from infirmities. First, the supplemental appeal was not verified. Second, it was belatedly filed seminars for the intended reorganization and reshuffling.
six months from the filing of the respondents’ notice of appeal with memorandum on appeal.
The petitioners pointed out that they only agreed to the respondents’ filing of a responsive The NLRC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 28,
pleading until December 18, 2002.13 Third¸ the attached documentary evidence on the 2006.17 Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
supplemental appeal bore the petitioners’ forged signatures. Court before the CA.18

They reiterated these allegations in an Urgent Motion to Resolve Manifestation and Motion The CA Ruling
(To Expunge from the Records Respondents’ Supplemental Appeal, Reply and/or
Rejoinder) dated January 31, 2003.14Subsequently, the petitioners filed an Urgent The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The CA held that the petitioners were afforded substantive
Manifestation with Reiterating Motion to Strike-Off the Record Supplemental and procedural due process. Accordingly, the petitioners deliberately did not explain their side.
Appeal/Reply, Quitclaims and Spurious Documents Attached to Respondents’ Instead, they continuously resisted their transfer to other PLDT offices and violated company
Appeal dated August 7, 2003.15 The petitioners argued in this last motion that the payrolls rules and regulations. It also upheld the NLRC’s findings on the petitioners’ monetary claims.
should not be given probative value because they were the respondents’ fabrications. They
reiterated that the genuine payrolls bore their signatures, unlike the respondents’ photocopies of
The CA denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated August 28, 2009,
the payrolls. They also maintained that their signatures in the respondents’ documents (which
prompting the petitioners to file the present petition.19
showed their receipt of thirteenth month pay) had been forged.

The Petition
The NLRC Ruling

In the petition before this Court, the petitioners argue that the CA committed a reversible error
In a resolution dated November 27, 2003, the NLRC partially ruled in favor of the
when it did not find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. They reiterate their
respondents.16 The NLRC affirmed the LA’s awards of holiday pay and attorney’s fees. It also
arguments before the lower tribunals and the CA in support of this conclusion. They also point
maintained that the LA acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents through their
out that the respondents posted a bond from a surety that was not accredited by this Court and
voluntary appearance.
by the NLRC. In effect, the respondents failed to perfect their appeal before the NLRC. They
further insist that the NLRC should not have admitted the respondents’ unverified supplemental
However, it allowed the respondents to submit pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal.20
appeal on the ground that they had been deprived of due process. It found that the
respondents did not actually receive the LA’s processes. It also admitted the respondents’
The Respondents’ Position
unverified supplemental appeal on the ground that technicalities may be disregarded to serve
the greater interest of substantial due process. Furthermore, the Rules of Court do not require
the verification of a supplemental pleading. In their Comments, the respondents stress that the petitioners only raised the issue of the validity
of the appeal bond for the first time on appeal. They also reiterate their arguments before the
NLRC and the CA. They additionally submit that the petitioners’ arguments have been fully
The NLRC also vacated the LA’s awards of salary differential, thirteenth month and service
passed upon and found unmeritorious by the NLRC and the CA. 21
incentive leave pays. In so ruling, it gave weight to the pieces of evidence attached to the
memorandum on appeal and the supplemental appeal. It maintained that the absence of the
2
The Issues the workers that they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the
employer’s appeal.23
This case presents to us the following issues:
In the present case, the respondents filed a surety bond issued by Security Pacific Assurance
1) Whether the CA erred when it did not find that the NLRC committed grave abuse Corporation (Security Pacific) on June 28, 2002. At that time, Security Pacific was still an
of discretion in giving due course to the respondents’ appeal; accredited bonding company. However, the NLRC revoked its accreditation on February 16,
2003.24 Nonetheless, this subsequent revocation should not prejudice the respondents who relied
a) Whether the respondents perfected their appeal before the NLRC; and on its then subsisting accreditation in good faith. In Del Rosario v. Philippine Journalists,
Inc.,25 we ruled that a bonding company’s revocation of authority is prospective in application.

b) Whether the NLRC properly allowed the respondents’ supplemental

appeal However, the respondents should post a new bond issued by an accredited bonding company in
compliance with paragraph 4, Section 6, Rule 6 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. This provision
states that "[a] cash or surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date of deposit or
2) Whether the respondents were estopped from submitting pieces of evidence for the
posting, until the case is finally decided, resolved or terminated or the award satisfied."
first time on appeal;

The CA correctly ruled that the

3) Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and are thus entitled to backwages;
NLRC properly gave due course to
the respondents’ supplemental
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential, overtime, holiday, appeal
premium, service incentive leave, and thirteenth month pays; and
The CA also correctly ruled that the NLRC properly gave due course to the respondents’
5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees. supplemental appeal. Neither the laws nor the rules require the verification of the supplemental
appeal.26 Furthermore, verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. It is mainly
The Court’s Ruling intended for the assurance that the matters alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not
of mere speculation.27 Also, a supplemental appeal is merely an addendum to the verified
The respondents perfected their memorandum on appeal that was earlier filed in the present case; hence, the requirement for
appeal with the NLRC because the verification has substantially been complied with.
revocation of the bonding company's
authority has a prospective The respondents also timely filed their supplemental appeal on January 3, 2003. The records of
application the case show that the petitioners themselves agreed that the pleading shall be filed until
December 18, 2002. The NLRC further extended the filing of the supplemental pleading until
Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that "[i]n case of a judgment involving a January 3, 2003 upon the respondents’ motion for extension.
monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash
or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in A party may only adduce evidence
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from." for the first time on appeal if he
adequately explains his delay in the
Contrary to the respondents’ claim, the issue of the appeal bond’s validity may be raised for the submission of evidence and he
first time on appeal since its proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement.22 The requirement that sufficiently proves the allegations
the appeal bond should be issued by an accredited bonding company is mandatory and sought to be proven
jurisdictional. The rationale of requiring an appeal bond is to discourage the employers from
using an appeal to delay or evade the employees' just and lawful claims. It is intended to assure In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required. Time and
again, we have allowed evidence to be submitted for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in
3
the interest of substantial justice.28 Thus, we have consistently supported the rule that labor allegations sought to be
officials should use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and proven
objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, in the interest of due process. 29
Furthermore, the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.
However, this liberal policy should still be subject to rules of reason and fairplay. The liberality Why the respondents’ photocopied and computerized copies of documentary evidence were not
of procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should adequately explain presented at the earliest opportunity is a serious question that lends credence to the petitioners’
any delay in the submission of evidence; and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the claim that the respondents fabricated the evidence for purposes of appeal. While we generally
allegations sought to be proven.30 The reason for these requirements is that the liberal admit in evidence and give probative value to photocopied documents in administrative
application of the rules before quasi-judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and proceedings, allegations of forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to present
hamper the just resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a license to the original documents for inspection.35 It was incumbent upon the respondents to present the
disregard the rules of procedure.31 originals, especially in this case where the petitioners had submitted their specimen signatures.
Instead, the respondents effectively deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to examine and
Guided by these principles, the CA grossly erred in ruling that the NLRC did not commit controvert the alleged spurious evidence by not adducing the originals. This Court is thus left
grave abuse of discretion in arbitrarily admitting and giving weight to the respondents’ pieces with no option but to rule that the respondents’ failure to present the originals raises the
of evidence for the first time on appeal. presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. 36

A. The respondents failed to It was also gross error for the CA to affirm the NLRC’s proposition that "[i]t is of common
adequately explain their delay knowledge that there are many people who use at least two or more different signatures."37 The
in the submission of evidence NLRC cannot take judicial notice that many people use at least two signatures, especially in this
case where the petitioners themselves disown the signatures in the respondents’ assailed
We cannot accept the respondents’ cavalier attitude in blatantly disregarding the NLRC Rules documentary evidence.38 The NLRC’s position is unwarranted and is patently unsupported by
of Procedure. The CA gravely erred when it overlooked that the NLRC blindly admitted and the law and jurisprudence.
arbitrarily gave probative value to the respondents’ evidence despite their failure to adequately
explain their delay in the submission of evidence. Notably, the respondents’ delay was anchored Viewed in these lights, the scales of justice must tilt in favor of the employees. This conclusion
on their assertion that they were oblivious of the proceedings before the LA. However, the is consistent with the rule that the employer’s cause can only succeed on the strength of its own
respondents did not dispute the LA’s finding that Mr. Romulo Pacia, Jr. appeared on their behalf evidence and not on the weakness of the employee’s evidence.39
on April 19, 2001 and May 21, 2001.32 The respondents also failed to contest the petitioners’
assertion that the respondents’ counsel appeared in a preliminary mandatory conference on July The petitioners are entitled to
5, 2001.33 backwages

Indeed, the NLRC capriciously and whimsically admitted and gave weight to the respondents’ Based on the above considerations, we reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding that the
evidence despite its finding that they voluntarily appeared in the compulsory arbitration petitioners were terminated for just cause and were afforded procedural due process. In
proceedings. The NLRC blatantly disregarded the fact that the respondents voluntarily opted termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee from
not to participate, to adduce evidence in their defense and to file a position paper despite their his employment rests upon the employer. The employer’s failure to discharge this burden results
knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before the LA. The respondents were also grossly in the finding that the dismissal is unjustified.40 This is exactly what happened in the present
negligent in not informing the LA of the specific building unit where the respondents were case.
conducting their business and their counsel’s address despite their knowledge of their non-
receipt of the processes.34 The petitioners are entitled to salary
differential, service incentive,
B. The respondents failed to holiday, and thirteenth month pays
sufficiently prove the

4
We also reverse the NLRC and the CA’s finding that the petitioners are not entitled to salary Araneta, Benjamin Cose and William Alipao) full backwages (computed from the date of their
differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays. As in illegal dismissal cases, respective dismissals up to the finality of this decision) and their salary differential, service
the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment rather than on the incentive leave, holiday, thirteenth month pays, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent
plaintiff to prove non-payment of these money claims.41 The rationale for this rule is that the (10%) of the withheld wages. The respondents are further directed to immediately post a
pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents – which satisfactory bond conditioned on the satisfaction of the awards affirmed in this Decision.
will show that differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid
– are not in the possession of the worker but are in the custody and control of the employer.42 SO ORDERED.

The petitioners are not entitled to

overtime and premium pays

However, the CA was correct in its finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual
basis for the award of overtime, and premium pays for holidays and rest days. The burden of
proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay for holidays and rest days rests on the
employee because these are not incurred in the normal course of business.43 In the present case,
the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence that would show that they actually rendered service
in excess of the regular eight working hours a day, and that they in fact worked on holidays and
rest days.

The petitioners are entitled to

attorney’s fees

The award of attorney’s fees is also warranted under the circumstances of this case.1âwphi1 An
employee is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount
of the wages in actions for unlawful withholding of wages.44

As a final note, we observe that Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego and Welito
Loon are also named as petitioners in this case. However, we deny their petition for the reason
that they were not part of the proceedings before the CA. Their failure to timely seek redress
before the CA precludes this Court from awarding them monetary claims.

All told, we find that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting and giving
probative value to the respondents' evidence on appeal, which errors the CA replicated when it
upheld the NLRC rulings.

WHEREFORE, based on these premises, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision dated
June 5, 2009, and the resolution dated August 28, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 95182. This case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the sole purpose of computing
petitioners' (Wilgen Loon, Jerry Arcilla, Albert Pereye, Arnold Pereye, Edgardo Obose, Arnel
Malaras, Patrocino Toetin, Evelyn Leonardo, Elmer Glocenda, Rufo Cunamay, Rolando Sajol,
Rolando Abucayon, Jennifer Natividad, Maritess Torion, Ammndo Lonzaga, Rizal Gellido,
Evirdly Haque, Myrna Vinas, Nena Abina, Emalyn Oliveros, Louie Ilagan, Joel Entig, Amel
5