CHARLIE HUBILLA, JOEL NAYRE, NENITA A. TAN, PEDRO MAGALLANES, JR.
, ARNEL YUSON,
JANICE CABATBAT, JUDY PAPINA, VANESSA ESPIRITU, NOEMI YALUNG, GENALYN
RESCOBILLO, FIDEL ZAQUITA, NYL B. CALINGASAN, JANICE MIRADORA, EVANGELINE CHUA,
ROSCHELLE MISSION, MELANIE BALLESTEROS, MARILYN BACALSO, RENALYN ALCANTARA,
FEDERICO B. VIERNES, CHRISTOPHER B. YARES, ANA MARY R. AGUILAR, MELANIE SAN
MARCOS, EMERLOVE MONTE, CHONALYN LUCAS, THERESA MALI COSIO, MA. FE CERCARES,
RUBELYN R. CLARO, JONALYN M. YALUNG, MARY ANN V. MACANAG, RESLYN L. FLORES,
CRISTEL C. ROQUE, TERESA G MUNAR, SUSAN A. DELA CRUZ, SHEENA KAY P. DE VERA,
ARLENE R. ANES, GINA B. BINIBINI, CHERINE V. ZORILLA, MA. CRISTINE MAGTOTO, FRANCIS
MARIE O. DE CASTRO, VANESSA R. ESPIRITU, RACHELLE V. QUISTORIA, JULIE ANN ILAN,
ANGELIE F. PANOTES, ANABEL PAYOS, MELISSA M. PERLAS, MELANIE B. BERSES, BARVI ROSE
PERALTA, RESIE AQUE, ROWENA RIVERA, MELANIE M. DY, CHERYLYN CORO, RANELYN
SUBONG, ANGELA SUBILLAGA, THELMA BARTOLABAC, MICHELLE C. ILAGAN, PRECIOUS MAE
DE GUZMAN, MARY CAROLINE COLINA, FRELYN HIPOLITO, MYLINE A. CALLOS, JANETH B.
SEMBILLO, LEA LYN F. FERRANCO, MAY C. SANTOS, ROSELLE A. NOBLE, JENNIFER D. SUYOM,
WARREN PETCHIE C. CAJES, ROWELYN F. CATALAN, RIEZEL ANN A. ALEGRE, DEMETRIA B.
PEREZ, GENALYN OSOC, JUVILYN N. NERI, JOY B. PIMENTEL, AIRENE LAYON, MARY JOY
TURQUEZA, MARY ANN VALENTIN, ROSIE L. NIEBRES, MELCA MALLORCA, JOY CAGATCAGAT,
DIANA CAMARO, MARIVEL DIJUMO, SHEILA DELA CRUZ, ELIZABETH ARINGO, JENALYN G.
DISMAYA, MELANIE G. TRIA, GRETCHEN D. MEJOS, and JANELIE R. JIMENEZ, Petitioners
vs.
HSY MARKETING LTD., CO., WANTOFREE ORIENTAL TRADING, INC., COEN FASHION HOUSE
AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, ASIA CONSUMER VALUE TRADING, INC., FABULOUS JEANS &
SHIRT & GENERAL MERCHANDISE, LSG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, UNITE GENERAL
MERCHANDISE, ROSARIO Q. CO, LUCIA PUN LING YEUNG, and ALEXANDER ARQUEZA,
Respondents
(January 10, 2018 G.R. No. 207354)
Facts of the Case:
Group of employees on several respondent companies went to Raffy Tulfo to address their
grievances and later on to DOLE and the Labor Arbiter. The Petitioners alleged that they were
not allowed to enter the building of Novo Jeans that they were employed. There was a show
cause letter against them by the company for which they believed it was already a dismissal to
them. Hence, they filed a complaint of illegal dismissal. On the contrary, the respondents
claimed that the said employees voluntarily severed their employment. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no substantial evidence that the
employees were dismissed and addressing their grievance to Raffy Tulfo is the main factor that
the employees voluntarily severed their employment and not reporting to work. On appeal to
NLRC, it was reversed on the ground that both of the parties did not have substantial evidence
that proved their allegations, hence, an equipoise. The Court of Appeals again reversed the
decision of the NLRC and ruled that the respondent company submitted by evidence the First
Letter of Termination and hence, it cannot be an equipoised.
Issues:
Whether or not there are substantial evidence presented by both of the parties
Held:
Substantial evidence is "the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. "Thus, in labor cases, the issues in petitions for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals are limited only to whether the National Labor
Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion.
However, this does not mean that the Court of Appeals is conclusively bound by the findings of
the National Labor Relations Commission. 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:
When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the employee
In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that the employee
was dismissed for a valid cause and that the employee was afforded due process prior to the
dismissal.
Indeed, no evidence has been presented proving that each and every petitioner received a copy
of the First Notice of Termination of Employment.1âwphi1 There are no receiving copies or
acknowledgement receipts. What respondents presented were "Sample Letters of
Respondents"75 and not the actual Notices that were allegedly sent out.
While petitioners admitted that the Notices may have been sent, they have never actually
admitted to receiving any of them.
Respondents have not presented any proof that petitioners intended to abandon their
employment. They merely alleged that petitioners have already voluntarily terminated their
employment due to their continued refusal to report for work. However, this is insufficient to
prove abandonment.
Where both parties in a labor case have not presented substantial evidence to prove their
allegations, the evidence is considered to be in equipoise. In such a case, the scales of justice
are tilted in favor of labor. Thus, petitioners are hereby considered to have been illegally
dismissed.
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.
