*

G.R. No. 118101. September 16, 1996.

EDDIE DOMASIG, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), CATA
‘GARMENTS CORPORATION and/or OTTO ONG and
CATALINA CO, respondents.

Labor Law; Administrative Law; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In

administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is
sufficient as a basis for judgment on the existence of employer-employee
relationship.—It has long been established that in administrative and quasi-
judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is sufficient as a basis for
judgment on the existence of employeremployee relationship. No particular
form of evidence is required to prove the existence of such employer-
employee relationship. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the
relationship may be admitted.

______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Substantial evidence

has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.—Substantial evidence has been
defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the
appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of the
trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or what
evidence is entitled to belief.
Same; Employer-Employee Relationship; ID Cards; In a business
establishment, an identification card is usually provided not only as a
security measure but mainly to identify the holder thereof as a bona fide
employee of the firm that issues it; An ID card together with cash vouchers
covering an employee’s salaries for the months stated therein constitute
substantial evidence adequate to support a conclusion that a person was
indeed an employee.—In a business establishment, an identification card is
usually provided not only as a security measure but mainly to identify the
holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm that issues it. Together
with the cash vouchers covering petitioner’s salaries for the months stated
therein, we agree with the labor arbiter that these matters constitute
substantial evidence adequate to support a conclusion that petitioner was
indeed an employee of private respondent.
Same; Same; Same; The list of sales collections including computation
of commissions due, expenses incurred and cash advances received,
presented in support of the employer’s allegation as regards the nature of a
person’s employment as a commission agent cannot overcome the evidence
of the ID card and salary vouchers.—The list of sales collection including
computation of commissions due, expenses incurred and cash advances
received (Exhibits “B" and “B-1") which, according to public respondent,
the labor arbiter failed to appreciate in support of private respondents’
allegation as regards the nature of petitioner’s employment as a commission
agent, cannot overcome the evidence of the ID card and salary vouchers
presented by petitioner which private respondents have not denied. The list
presented by private respondents would even support petitioner’s allegation
that, aside from. a monthly salary of P1,500.00, he also received
commissions for his work as a salesman of private respondents.

781

VOL. 261, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 781

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Same; Same; Illegal Dismissal; Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not

required as basis for judgment on the legality of an employer’s dismissal of
an employee, nor even preponderance of evidence for that matter,
substantial evidence being sufficient.—Having been in the employ of private
respondents continuously for more than one year, under the law, petitioner is
considered a regular employee. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required as a basis for judgment on the legality of an employer’s dismissal
of an employee, nor even preponderance of evidence for that matter,
substantial evidence being sufficient. Petitioner’s contention that private
respondents terminated his employment due to their suspicion that he was
being enticed by another firm to work for it was not refuted by private
respondents. The labor arbiter’s conclusion that petitioner’s dismissal is
therefore illegal, is not necessarily arbitrary or erroneous. It is entitled to
great weight and respect.
Same; Same; It is error and grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to
remand the case for further proceedings to determine whether or not a
person is an employee, after all Article 218 of the Labor Code grants the
Commission and the labor arbiter broad powers, including issuance of
subpoena, requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the
production of such documentary evidence as may be material to a just
determination of the matter under investigation.—It was error and grave
abuse of discretion for the NLRC to remand the case for further proceedings
to determine whether or not petitioner was private respondents’ employee.
This would only prolong the final disposition of the complaint. It is stressed
that, in labor cases, simplification of procedures, without regard to
technicalities and without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due
process, is mandated to ensure the speedy administration of justice. After
all, Article 218 of the Labor Code grants the Commission and the labor
arbiter broad powers, including issuance of subpoena, requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such
documentary evidence as may be material to a just determination of the
matter under investigation.
Same; Same; The NLRC and the labor arbiter may decide a case based
on the position papers and documents submitted without resorting to the
technical rules of evidence.—Additionally, the National Labor Relations
Commission and the labor arbiter have authority under the Labor Code to
decide a case based on the position papers and documents submitted without
resorting to the technical rules of evidence.

782

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Law Firm of Ross B. Bautista for petitioner.
Tristan Zoleta for private respondent.

PADILLA, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 651 of the Rules of Court
seeks to nullify and set aside the Resolution of respondent National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered on 20 September
1994 remanding the records of the case to the arbitration branch of
origin for further proceedings.
The antecedent facts as narrated by public respondent in the
assailed resolution are as follows:

“The complaint was instituted by Eddie Domasig against respondent Cata

Garments Corporation, a company engaged in garments business and its
owner/manager Otto Ong and Catalina Co for illegal dismissal, unpaid
commission and other monetary claim[s]. Complainant alleged that he
started working with the respondent on July 6, 1986 as Salesman when the
Company was still named Cato Garments Corporation; that three (3) years
ago, because of a complaint against respondent by its workers, it changed its
name to Cata Garments Corporation; and that on August 29, 1992, he was
dismissed when respondent learned that he was being pirated by a rival
corporation which offer he refused. Prior to his dismissal, complainant
alleged that he was receiving a salary of P1,500.00 a month plus
commission. On September 3, 1992 he filed the instant complaint.
Respondent denied complainant’s claim that he is a regular employee
contending that he is a mere commission agent who receives a commission
of P5.00 per piece of article sold at regular price and P2.50 per piece sold in
[sic] bargain price; that in addition to commission, complainant receives a
fixed allowance of P1,500.00 a month; that he has no regular time schedule;
and that the company come [sic] into existence only on September 17, 1991.
In support of

______________

1 Annex “H" of the Petition, pp. 101–105, Rollo.

783

VOL. 261, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 783

Domasig us. National Labor Relations Commission

its claim that complainant is a commission agent, respondent submitted as

Annexes ‘B' and ‘B-1' the List of Sales Collections, Computation of
Commission due, expenses incurred, cash advances received for the month
of January and March 1992 (Rollo p. 22–27). Respondent further contends
that complainant failed to turn over to the respondent his collection from
two (2) buyers as per affidavit executed by these buyers (Rollo p. 28–29)
and for which, according to respondent it initiated criminal proceedings
against the complainant.
The Labor Arbiter held that complainant was illegally dismissed and
entitled to reinstatement and backwages as well as underpayment of salary;
13th month pay; service incentive leave and legal holiday. The Arbiter also
awarded complainant
2 his claim for unpaid commission in the amount of
P143,955.00."

Private respondents appealed the decision of the labor arbiter to

public respondent. As aforesaid, the NLRC resolved to remand the
case to the labor arbiter for further proceeding. It declared as
follows:

“We find the decision of the Labor Arbiter not supported by evidence on
record. The issue of whether or not complainant was a commission agent
was not fully resolved in the assailed decision. It appears that the Labor
Arbiter failed to appreciate the evidences submitted by respondent as
Annexes “B" and “B-1" (Rollo, p. 22–27) in support of its allegation as
regard[s] the nature of complainant’s employment. Neither is there a
showing that the parties were required to adduce further evidence to support
their respective claim. The resolution of the nature of complainant’s
employment is vital to the case at bar considering that it would be
determinative to his entitlement of monetary benefits. The same is similarly
true as regard the claim [sic] for unpaid commission. The amount being
claim [sic] for unpaid commission as big as it requires substantial proof to
establish the entitlement of the complainant to the same. We take note of the
respondent’s claim that ‘while they admit that complainant has an unpaid
commission due him, the same is only for his additional sale of 4,027 pieces
of regular price and 1,047 pieces at bargain price for a total sum of
(P20,135.00+2,655.00) or P22,820.00 as appearing in the list of Sales and
unpaid commission’ (Annex ‘C' and

______________

2 lbid., pp. 102–103, Rollo.

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

‘C-1' Appeal, Rollo, p. 100–102). Said amount according to respondent is

being withheld by them pending the accounting of money collected by
complainant from his two (2) buyers which was not remitted to them.
Considering the conflicting version of the parties regarding the issues on
hand, it was incumbent on the Labor Arbiter to conduct further proceedings
thereon. The ends of justice would better be served3 if both parties are given
the opportunity to ventilate further their positions."

In their comment on the petition at bar, private respondents agree

with the finding of the NLRC that the nature of petitioner’s
employment with private respondents is vital to the case as it will
determine the monetary benefits to which he is entitled. They further
aver that the evidence presented upon which the labor arbiter based
her decision is insufficient, so that the NLRC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in remanding the case to the arbitration branch of
origin for further proceedings.
The comment of the Solicitor General is substantially the same as
that of private respondents, i.e., there is no sufficient evidence to
prove employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Furthermore, he avers that the order of the NLRC to the labor arbiter
for further proceedings does not automatically translate to a
protracted trial on the merits for such can be faithfully complied
with through the submission of additional documents or pleadings
only.
The only issue to be resolved in this petition is whether or not the
NLRC gravely abused its discretion in vacating and setting aside the
decision of the labor arbiter and remanding the case to the
arbitration branch of origin for further proceedings.
In essence, respondent NLRC was not convinced that the
evidence presented by the petitioner, consisting of the identification
card issued to him by private respondent corporation and the cash
vouchers reflecting his monthly salaries covering the months stated
therein, settled the issue of employer-

______________

3 Ibid., pp. 104–105.

785

VOL. 261, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 785

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

employee relationship between private respondents and petitioner.

It has long been established that in administrative and quasi-
judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is sufficient as a basis for
judgment on the existence of employer-employee relationship. No
particular form of evidence is required to prove the existence of such
employer-employee relationship. Any competent 4 and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted.
Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is
contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the
appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for
that of the trial court in determining wherein 5 lies the weight of
evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief.
In a business establishment, an identification card is usually
provided not only as a security measure but mainly to identify the
holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm that issues it.
Together with the cash vouchers covering petitioner’s salaries for the
months stated therein, we agree with the labor arbiter that these
matters constitute substantial evidence adequate to support a
conclusion that petitioner was indeed an employee of private
respondent.
Section 4, Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the National
Labor Relations Commission provides thus:

“Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing.—Immediately after the

submission of the parties of their position papers/memoranda, the Labor
Arbiter shall motu propio determine whether there is need for a formal trial
or hearing. At this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of
making such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts
or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant
documentary evidence, if any, from any party or witness.”

______________

4 Opulencia Ice Plant and Storage vs. NLRC, 228 SCRA 473.
5 Velasquez vs. Nery, 211 SCRA 28 [1992]).

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domasig us. National Labor Relations Commission

“It is clear from the law that it is the arbiters who are authorized to
determine whether or not there is a necessity for conducting formal hearings
in cases brought before them for adjudication. Such6 determination is entitled
to great respect in the absence of arbitrariness."

In the case at bar, we do not believe that the labor arbiter acted
arbitrarily. Contrary to the finding of the NLRC, her decision at least
on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
private respondents and petitioner, is supported by substantial
evidence on record.
The list of sales collection including computation of
commissions due, expenses incurred and cash advances received
(Exhibits “B" and “B-1") which, according to public respondent, the
labor arbiter failed to appreciate in support of private respondents’
allegation as regards the nature of petitioner’s employment as a
commission agent, cannot overcome the evidence of the ID card and
salary vouchers presented by petitioner which private respondents
have not denied. The list presented by private respondents would
even support petitioner’s allegation that, aside from a monthly salary
of P1,500.00, he also received commissions for his work as a
salesman of private respondents.
‘Having been in the employ of private respondents continuously
for more than one year, under the law, petitioner is considered a
regular employee. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as
a basis for judgment on the legality of an employer’s dismissal of an
employee, nor even preponderance of 7 evidence for that matter,
substantial evidence being sufficient. Petitioner’s contention that
private respondents terminated his employment due to their
suspicion that he was being enticed by another firm to work for it
was not refuted by private respondents. The labor arbiter’s
conclusion that petitioner’s dismissal is therefore illegal, is not
necessarily arbitrary or erroneous. It is entitled to great weight and
respect.

______________
 6 Coca-Cola Salesforce Union vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 680.
7 Velasquez vs. Nery, supra.

787

VOL. 261, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 787

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission

It was error and grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to remand
the case for further proceedings to determine whether or not
petitioner was private respondents’ employee. This would only
prolong the final disposition of the complaint. It is stressed that, in
labor cases, simplification of procedures, without regard to
technicalities and without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of
due process,
8 is mandated to ensure the speedy administration of
justice.
After all, Article 218 of the Labor Code grants the Commission
and the labor arbiter broad powers, including issuance of subpoena,
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the
production of such documentary evidence as may be material to a
just determination of the matter under investigation.
Additionally, the National Labor Relations Commission and the
labor arbiter have authority under the Labor Code to decide a case
based on the position papers and documents 9 submitted without
resorting to the technical rules of evidence.
However, in view of the need for further and correct computation
of the petitioner’s commissions in the light of the exhibits presented
and the dismissal of the criminal cases filed -against petitioner, the
labor arbiter is required to undertake a new computation of the
commissions to which petitioner may be entitled, within thirty (30)
days from submission by the parties of all necessary documents.
WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the public respondent dated 20
September 1994 and 9 November 1994 are SET ASIDE. The
decision of the labor arbiter dated 19 May 1993 is REINSTATED
and AFFIRMED subject to the modification above-stated as regards
a re-computation by the labor arbiter of the commissions to which
petitioner maybe actually entitled.

______________

8 Sigma Personnel Services vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 181 (1993).

9 Cagampan, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., 195 SCRA 533 (1991).

788

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domasig vs. National Labor Relations Commission
 SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.,

concur.

Resolution set aside, judgment of Labor Arbiter reinstated and

affirmed with modification.

Notes.—In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond

reasonable doubt is at the highest level, followed by clear and
convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial
evidence, in that order. (Manalo vs. RoldanConfesor, 215 SCRA 808
[1992])
The minimum requirement of due process in termination
proceedings consists of notice to the employees intended to be
dismissed and the grant to them of an opportunity to present their
own side. (Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc. vs. Palmos, 232 SCRA
448 [1994])

——o0o——

789

VOL. 261, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 789

The UNCITRAL Model Law and Philippine Arbitration

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.