LLR 413 :: Labor Law Review

RATIO DECIDENDI
CHARLIE HUBILLA, et al. vs HSY 1. YES. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on
the employer to prove that the employee was dismissed
MARKETING LTD., CO., et al. for a valid cause and that the employee was afforded due
G.R. No. 207354 process prior to the dismissal.
Digest prepared by Peter David Illescas Indeed, no evidence has been presented proving that
each and every petitioner received a copy of the First
DATE: January 10, 2018 Notice of Termination of Employment. There are no
receiving copies or acknowledgement receipts. The lack of
Ponente: MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN. evidence of petitioners' receipts suggests that the Notices
were an afterthought, designed to free respondents from
BACKGROUND any liability without having to validly dismiss petitioners.
1. Nature: There is likewise no proof that petitioners abandoned
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the their employment. To constitute abandonment, the
February 25, 2013 Decision and May 30, 2013 Resolution employer must prove that "first, the employee must have
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126522, which failed to report for work or must have been absent without
upheld the Labor Arbiter's finding that the employees valid or justifiable reason; and second, [that] there must
voluntarily terminated their employment. have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to
sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by
2. Case History: some overt act." Furthermore, there must be a
Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni rendered a Decision concurrence of these two (2) elements. Absent this
dismissing the complaints. He found that other than the concurrence, there can be no abandonment.
employees' bare allegations that they were dismissed from This Court notes that had petitioners been able to
June 6 to 9, 2010, they did not present any other evidence substantially prove their dismissal, it would have been
showing that their employment was terminated or that they rendered invalid not only for having been made without
were prevented from reporting for work. The Labor Arbiter just cause but also for being in violation of their
likewise ruled that the employees voluntarily severed their constitutional rights. A laborer does not lose his or her
employment since the airing of their grievances on Raffy right to freedom of expression upon employment. This is
Tulfo's radio program "[was] enough reason for them not "[a] political [right] essential to man's enjoyment of his [or
to report for work, simply because of a possible her] life, to his [or her] happiness, and to his [or her] full
disciplinary action by [Novo Jeans]." and complete fulfillment." While the Constitution and the
The National Labor Relations Commission rendered a courts recognize that employers have property rights that
Decision 14 reversing that of the Labor Arbiter and finding must also be protected, the human rights of laborers are
that the employees were illegally dismissed. It ruled that given primacy over these rights. Property rights may
the allegations of both parties "were unsubstantiated and prescribe. Human rights do not. When laborers air out
thus [were] equipoised" their grievances regarding their employment in a public
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing forum, they do so in the exercise of their right to free
the Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission expression. However, there not being sufficient proof that
and reinstating the Labor Arbiter Decision. The equipoise the dismissal was meant to suppress petitioners'
rule was inapplicable in this case since it is only applied constitutional rights, this Court is constrained to limit its
when the evidence between the parties was equally conclusions to that of illegal dismissal under the Labor
balanced. Considering that only Novo Jeans was able to Code.
present proof of its claims, the Court of Appeals was Petitioners were not dismissed under any of the
inclined to rule in its favor. causes mentioned in Article 279 [282] of the Labor Code.
They were not validly informed of the causes of their
FACTS OF THE CASE dismissal. Thus, their dismissal was illegal.
1. Sometime in May 2010 and June 2010, several Novo 2. YES. Factual findings of labor officials exercising quasi-
Jeans employees went to Raffy Tulfo's radio program to judicial functions are accorded great respect and even
air their grievances against their employers for alleged finality by the courts when the findings are supported by
labor violations. substantial evidence. Thus, in labor cases, the issues in
2. These employees claimed that on June 7, 2010, they were petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals are
not allowed to enter the Novo Jeans branches they were limited only to whether the National Labor Relations
employed in. They further averred that while Novo Jeans Commission committed grave abuse of discretion.
sent them a show cause letter the next day, they were in The Court of Appeals may also review factual findings
truth already dismissed from employment. if quasi-judicial agencies' findings are contradictory to its
3. On the other hand, Novo Jeans claimed that these own findings. Thus, it must re-examine the records to
employees voluntarily severed their employment but that determine which tribunal's findings were supported by the
they filed complaints later with the Department of Labor evidence. In this instance, the Labor Arbiter and the
and Employment. National Labor Relations Commission made contradictory
factual findings.
ISSUES [I]n the determination of whether the National Labor
1. W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed by Relations Commission committed grave abuse of
respondents. discretion, the Court of Appeals may re-examine facts and
2. W/N the Court of Appeals may, in a petition for certiorari, re-assess the evidence. This Court notes that in cases
review and re-assess the factual findings of the National when the Court of Appeals acts as an appellate court, it is
Labor Relations Commission. still a trier of facts. Questions of fact may still be raised by
3. W/N verification based on facts relayed to the affiant by the parties. If the parties raise pure questions of law, they
his clients is valid may directly file with this Court. x x x The need to review
 the Court of Appeals' factual findings must still be pleaded,
proved, and substantiated by the party alleging their
inaccuracy.
3. NO. [T]he issue on verification centers on whether the
phrase "based upon facts relayed to me by my clients"
may be considered sufficient compliance.
Thus, for verification to be valid, the affiant must have
"ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations
in the complaint or petition." Facts relayed to the counsel
by the client would be insufficient for counsel to swear to
the truth of the allegations in a pleading.
While courts may simply order the resubmission of
the verification or its subsequent correction, a defect in the
certification of non-forum shopping is not curable unless
there are substantial merits to the case. However,
respondents' Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
Appeals was unmeritorious. Thus, its defective verification
and certification of non-forum shopping should have
merited its outright dismissal.

DECISION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The February
25, 2013 Decision and May 30, 2013 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126522 are SET ASIDE.
Respondents are DIRECTED to reinstate petitioners to their
former positions without loss of seniority rights or other
privileges.

APPENDIXES
Guidelines in the Interpretation and Application of the
Law:
a. Substantial evidence is "the amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
b. If the findings are arrived at arbitrarily, without resort
to any substantial evidence, the National Labor
Relations Commission is deemed to have gravely
abused its discretion.
c. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading
is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records. (Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court)
d. Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008) - 3)
Verification is deemed substantially complied with
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct. 4) As to certification against forum shopping,
non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a
need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons".
e. When the evidence of the employer and the employee
are in equipoise, doubts are resolved in favor of
labor. This is in line with the policy of the State to
afford greater protection to labor.