4. Loon, et al. vs. Power Master Inc., Tri-C General Services, Sps. Alumisin (GR. No.

189404)
Facts:
1. Power Master and Tri-C employes Loon et al. as janitors and leadsmen in various PLDT offices. Later, Loon et al. filed a
complaint for money claims against Power Master, Tri-C and Sps. Alumisin (their officers).
a. They alleged non-payment of minimum wages, overtime, holiday, etc.
2. Later, they amended their complaint and included illegal dismissal as their cause of action alleging they were relieved
from service for filing their original complaint.
a. Notably, respondents did not participate in the LA proceedings.
3. LA: Granted only some of the money claims and not illegally dismissed.
4. Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
a. Respondents, as proof, attached photocopied and computerized copies of payroll sheets to their memorandum
on appeal.
b. Respondents filed an unverified supplemental appeal, attaching several pieces of evidence.
5. Loon et al. filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion where they asked for the deletion of the supplemental appeal from
the records.
a. First, the supplemental appeal was not verified.
b. Second, it was belatedly filed six months from the filing of the respondents' notice of appeal with memorandum
on appeal.
6. NLRC: Allowed respondents to submit pieces of evidence for the first time on appeal as they had been deprived of due
process since they did not actually receive the LA's processes. Unverified supplemental appeal on the ground that
technicalities may be disregarded to serve the greater interest of substantial due process. ROC does not require the
verification of a supplemental pleading. CA affimed.

Issue: W/N the unverified supplemental appeal should be admitted - YES.

W/N the evidence attached to the supplemental appeal should be admitted - NO.
Held:
1. Neither the laws nor the rules require the verification of the supplemental appeal. Also, a supplemental appeal is merely
an addendum to the verified memorandum on appeal that was earlier filed in the present case; hence, the requirement for
verification has substantially been complied with.
2. The respondents also timely filed their supplemental appeal on January 3, 2003. Records show that the Loon et al.
themselves agreed that the pleading shall be filed until December 18, 2002. NLRC further extended the filing of the
supplemental pleading until January 3, 2003 upon the respondents' motion for extension.
3. A party may only adduce evidence for the first time on appeal if (1) he adequately explains his delay in the submission of
evidence and (2) he sufficiently proves the allegations sought to be proven. Here, respondents did not meet the 2
requirements.
4. 1 - They were not oblivious to the LA proceedings as their counsel, Mr. Romula Pacia, Jr. appeared on their behalf on
separate occasions and during the preliminary conference so they voluntarily opted not to participate, to adduce evidence
in their defense and to file a position paper despite their knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before the LA.
5. 2 - Respondents' photocopied and computerized copies of documentary evidence were not presented at the earliest
opportunity, which proposes that the respondents fabricated the evidence for purposes of appeal.
a. Respondents' failure to present the originals raises the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced.