CaseDig: Sasan vs NLRC
G.R. No 176240; 17 Oct. 2008
Posted by: Von Derek on 19 July 2018
FACTS:
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a janitorial
and messengerial service provider, and assigned to E PCI
Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services were cut
off when EPCI decided to bid out the janitorial and
messengerial jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al
then filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that they are
regular employees of PCI, and HI has no authority to dismiss
them.
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it
concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it
operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor
Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding
money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and
submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving
that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent
contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into
consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the
complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter,
deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but
affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's
decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a janitorial
and messengerial service provider, and assigned to E PCI
Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services were cut
off when EPCI decided to bid out the janitorial and
messengerial jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al
then filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that they are
regular employees of PCI, and HI has no authority to dismiss
them.
After submission of legal positions to the Labor Arbiter, it
concluded that HI is engaged in labor on contracting as it
operates without substantial capital as required by the Labor
Code, declaring PCI as the principal employer and awarding
money claims to the employees for their illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC and
submitted for the first time photocopy of documents proving
that they have sufficient capital to operate as an independent
contractor. The NLRC modified the LA's decision taking into
consideration the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled that the
complaint for illegal dismissal was prematurely filed, furhter,
deleted the award of backwages and separation pay, but
affirmed the award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the NLRC's
decision. Further, appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit
with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?
HELD:

The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not

prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence
prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in
labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use
every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities
of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.

The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally
dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of
Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to
continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not
constitute illegal dismissal.

WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence and give merit

with the same introduced for the first time during appeal?

The submission of new evidence before the NLRC is not

prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. Rules of evidence
prevailing in in courts of law or equity are not controlling in
labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters are directed to use
every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each
case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities
of law and procedure all in the interest of substantial justice.

The court further ruled that the petitioners were not illegally
dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of the Contract of
Service between HI and EPCI , the petitioners cannot insist to
continue work for the latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not
constitute illegal dismissal.