View full case

WILGEN LOON v. POWER MASTER

FACTS:

Respondents Power Master, Inc. and Tri-C General Services employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and leadsmen in various Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) offices in Metro Manila area. The petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against the respondents, alleging non-payment of various labor-related pays. They also claimed that the respondents made them sign blank payroll sheets. The petitioners amended their complaint to include illegal dismissal as a cause of action, alleging retaliation from the respondents.

The Labor Arbiter ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, awarding them some of the monetary claims. However, the Labor Arbiter denied other claims and stated that the petitioners failed to prove their entitlement to these claims.

Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The respondents questioned the Labor Arbiter's jurisdiction over their persons and insisted that they paid the petitioners the disputed claims. The petitioners sought to expunge the respondents' supplemental appeal on various grounds.

The NLRC partially ruled in favor of the respondents, but details of the ruling were not provided in the excerpt.

The respondents filed a complaint for various labor claims against the petitioners. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, but the NLRC allowed the respondents to submit additional evidence for the first time on appeal. The NLRC also admitted the respondents' supplemental appeal and vacated certain awards based on the evidence attached to the appeal. The NLRC found that the petitioners were lawfully dismissed and denied their motion for reconsideration. The CA affirmed the NLRC's ruling and denied the petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed a petition with the Supreme Court.

The issues raised in the case include the CA's failure to recognize the NLRC's alleged grave abuse of discretion, whether the respondents' appeal was perfected and if the supplemental appeal was properly allowed, whether the respondents were estopped from submitting additional evidence on appeal, whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed and entitled to backwages, and whether the petitioners are entitled to various labor-related pays and attorney's fees.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appeal bond's validity may be raised for the first time on appeal.

  2. Whether the NLRC properly gave due course to the respondents' supplemental appeal.

  3. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting and giving weight to the respondents' evidence for the first time on appeal.

  4. Whether the respondents failed to sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.

  5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to backwages.

  6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays.

  7. Whether the petitioners are entitled to overtime and premium pays.

  8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees.

  9. Whether Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego, and Welito Loon are entitled to monetary claims.

  10. Whether or not the NLRC erred in finding that the respondent employer illegally withheld the wages of the petitioners;

  11. Whether or not the NLRC erred in reducing the award of moral damages;

  12. Whether or not the NLRC erred in not awarding exemplary damages;

  13. Whether or not the NLRC erred in denying the petitioners' claim for attorney's fees;

RULING:

  1. The requirement that the appeal bond should be issued by an accredited bonding company is mandatory and jurisdictional. It can be raised for the first time on appeal because its proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement.

  2. The NLRC properly gave due course to the respondents' supplemental appeal. Verification of the supplemental appeal is not required, and the filing of the supplemental pleading was timely.

  3. The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting and giving weight to the respondents' evidence for the first time on appeal.

  4. The respondents failed to sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven. Their failure to present the original documents raises the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. The Court also finds that the NLRC's proposition that many people use multiple signatures is unwarranted and unsupported by law and jurisprudence.

  5. The petitioners are entitled to backwages because the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests upon the employer, and the employer failed to discharge this burden.

  6. The petitioners are entitled to salary differential, service incentive, holiday, and thirteenth month pays. The burden rests on the defendant to prove payment rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The pertinent documents showing payment are in the custody and control of the employer.

  7. The petitioners are not entitled to overtime and premium pays because they failed to provide sufficient factual basis for the award. The burden of proving entitlement to these pays rests on the employee.

  8. The petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of the wages in actions for unlawful withholding of wages.

  9. Rodelito Ayala, Winelito Ojel, Renato Rodrego, and Welito Loon are not entitled to monetary claims because they were not part of the proceedings before the CA.

  10. The NLRC did not err in finding that the respondent employer illegally withheld the wages of the petitioners. The evidence presented shows that the petitioners were not paid their wages for a certain period, in violation of the Labor Code.

  11. The NLRC erred in reducing the award of moral damages. The petitioners suffered anxiety, sleepless nights, and mental anguish due to the respondent's illegal act. Thus, the moral damages awarded should not be reduced.

  12. The NLRC erred in not awarding exemplary damages. The respondent employer's act of withholding the wages of the petitioners was oppressive and done in bad faith. Exemplary damages should be awarded to deter others from committing similar acts.

  13. The NLRC erred in denying the petitioners' claim for attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees is proper since the petitioners were compelled to litigate to protect their rights.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The appeal bond requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade employees' claims.

  • A bonding company's revocation of authority is prospective in application.

  • Liberal application of procedural rules is allowed in labor cases, but should be subject to reason and fair play.

  • Liberal construction of rules does not equate to disregarding rules of procedure.

  • Adequate explanation of delay in the submission of evidence is required, and allegations sought to be proven must be sufficiently proved.

  • The burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests upon the employer.

  • The burden of proving payment of money claims rests on the employer.

  • The burden of proving entitlement to overtime pay and premium pay rests on the employee.

  • An employee is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in actions for unlawful withholding of wages.

  • Only parties who were part of the proceedings are entitled to monetary claims.

  • Illegal withholding of wages is a violation of the Labor Code.

  • Moral damages may be awarded in cases of illegal withholding of wages, provided that there is evidence of anxiety, sleepless nights, or mental anguish suffered by the employees.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded in cases of illegal withholding of wages if the act was done in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in labor cases as an exception to the general rule that each party bears its own attorney's fees.