Case No. 8 GR No. 202392 2021-10-04 ✍️👨‍⚖️ HERNANDO, J.

 Labor cases have never been strictly bound by technicalities of form and procedure. 

Case No. 8 GR No. 202392 2021-10-04

PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS v. VIOLETA NOCHE 

✍️👨‍⚖️ HERNANDO, J.

A petition for review on certiorari urider Ruie 45 of the Rules of Court filed before the Supreme Court covers pure questions of law - questions on the application of the law on a certain set and state of established facts. 

Questions of fact, or those seeking to verify the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, will not be entertained. Essentially, a petition for review on certiorari excludes a reassessment of the disputed facts of the case. 

Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People delineated the parameters in the determination of whether a legal question raised is of law or of fact: 

For a question to be one of law, its resolution must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants, but must rely soleiy on what the law provides on the given set of facts. If the facts are disputed or if the issues require an examination of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact. The test, therefore, is not the appellation given to a question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. 

Azucena Vol. 1 (2021) - Labor Standards: Comments & Cases

Note, however, that this is not a inflexible rule. A factual probe into the case may be conducted in a Rule 45 petition if it falls under the exceptional circumstances laid out by jurisprudence: 

(1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; 

(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 

(3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; 

(4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 

(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; 

(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its fmdings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; 

(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; 

(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions -without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 

(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and 

(10) when the finding of fact of the Cou..rt of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 

The case at hand does not fall under any of these exceptions. 

Azucena Vol. 2 (2021) - Labor Relations and Employment, Comments & Cases - Code

PRBFI first argues against the CA's act of allowing respondents' Petition for Certiorari despite the latter's alleged failure to fully comply with the CA's directive to submit additional supporting documents. Petitioner believes that the petition should have been dismissed, but the CA instead unfairly gave due course to the same. 

The Court disagrees with petitioner. 

Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court instructs that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the formal requirements of a petition for certiorari shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal. 

The CA, however, is not compelled to automatically order the dismissal of a formally-in.firm pleading. 

Section 5, Rule 46 of the same Rules states: 

SEC. 5. Action by the court. - The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. xx x. 

Two basic options are given to the CA under the foregoing provision: 

(1) to dismiss the petition outright, wit.h. specific reasons, or 

(2) to require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. 

The CA, however, holds a wide discretionary latitude in the disposition of the cases filed before it and is not restricted to those provided under Section 5, Rule 46. 

Azucena (2021) - Everyone's Labor Code - Essential Textbook Updated Reviewer Bar Law

In resolving respondents' Petition for Certiorari, the appellate court exercised such judicial discretion by first instructing respondents to complete the documentary attachments. Respondents did so, albeit inaccurately. While petitioner pointed out that respondents attached the allegedly wrong pleadings to their Compliance, the CA noted the same, directed PRBFI to file a Comment, and proceeded to decide respondents' Petition for Certiorari on the merits. 

Contrary to PRBFI's insinuations, the CA did not act arbitrarily. The CA correctly relied on the available documents already submitted by the parties; after all, litigants in a labor case must allege all their arguments and evidence in their position papers and pleadings before the labor arbiter, and no other argument or evidence will be considered other than those raised during the proceedings before the labor arbiter.

Poquiz (2018) - Vol. 1 - Labor Standards & Social Legislation - Labor Code Notes & Comments

Labor cases have never been strictly bound by technicalities of form and procedure. Also, a grant of liberality to one does not automatically connote bias against the other party. An allegation of bias is a grave accusation that requires proof, and there can be no bias ascribable upon a tribunal if its actions were clearly done in accordance with the law.

Appeals of decisions rendered by a labor arbiter that grant a monetary award in favor of an employee require the aggrieved employer to file a bond. [Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended (2011 NLRC Rules)]. 

Poquiz (2018) - Vol. 2 - Labor Relations and Law on Dismissal - Labor Code

The general rule is that appeals by an employer before the NLRC of decisions by a labor arbiter that involve monetary awards to an employee must be secured by a cash or surety bond in the full amount of the monetary award. 

By way of exception, the payment of this full amount may be excused if the appealing employer files a motion to reduce bond showing meritorious grounds, and upon posting of a bond in a reasonable amount. 

Mcburnie v. Ganzon has already set the "reasonable amount" of the provisional reduced bond at a percentage of 10% of the monetary award, excluding the amount of damages and attorney's fees, if any. 

Check out Bar Q&A (2022 Ed.) - Labor Law - Questions an...!₱880.00 only!Get it on Lazada now!

Its ratio was stated in this wise: 

To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in tb.e meantime that an appellant's motion is pending resolution by the Commission. In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for th.e purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney's fees. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended. 

Questions & Answers of 2005-2021 Supreme Court Decisions in Labor Law (2022 edition)

 

The foregoing shall not be misconstrued to unduly hinder the NLRC's exercise of its discretion, given that the percentage of bond that is set by this guideline shall be merely provisional. The NLRC retains its authority and duty to resolve the motion and determine the final amount of bond that shall be posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of "meritorious grounds" and "reasonable amount". Should the NLRC, after considering foe motion's merit, determine that a greater amount or the full amount of the bond needs to be posted by the appellant, then the party shall comply accordingly. The appella.."lt shall be given a period of 10 days from notice of the NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the required appeal bond. 

Indeed, trust is fundamental in every employer-employee relationship. 

Not all employees, however, are dismissible on the basis of loss of trust and confidence. Only managerial employees and fiduciary rank-and-file employees may be terminated from work on such ground. If PRBFI's theory would be sustained, then all employees shall be inequitably deemed as holding positions of fiduciary nature. Respondents having occupied ordinary rank-and-file posts with petitioner, their dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is illegal. 

ANSWER TO BAR EXAMINATIONS QUESTIONS IN LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION LAW 1997-2018 UP LAW COMPLEX

In Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera the Court discusses in brief PRBFI's non-compliance with the guidelines for procedural due process that must be accorded to employees who are due for dismissal, viz.: 

[T]he following should be considered in terminating the services of employees: 

(1) The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period. "Reasonable opportunity" under the Onmibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the employees an opportunity to lstudy the accusation against them, consult atmion official or lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against tb.e corilplaint. Moreover, in order to enable the employees to intelligently preparb their explamation and defenses, the notice should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the employees. A general description of the charge will not suffice. Lastly, the notice should specifically mention which company rules, if any, are violated and/or which among the grounds under Art. 282 is being charged !against the employees. 

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their defenses to the charge agahist them; (2) present evidence in support 0f th.eir defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented against tb.em by the management. During the hearing or conference, tbe employees are given the charlce to defend themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative or counsel of their choice. Moreover, this conference or hearing could be usel d by the parties as an opportunity to come to an amicable settlement. 

(3) After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all circumstar1ces involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.(Emphasis supplied.)

Labor Code of the Philippines  (2020 Edition)

The illegality of respondents' dismissal being established both in substance and procedure, respondents are entitled to all the consequent backwages and attorney's fees that they have duly proved before and granted by the Labor Arbiter. 

The Court adds that, following Vacar v. Gallery Frames,  these monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid by PRBFI to respondents. 

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed December 28, 2011 Decision and the June 25, 2012 Resolution by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 112840 are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the monetary awards to respondents shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid by PRBFI.

Bar Syllabus (2023) - Examination Notebook Outline Space for Exam Notes HernandoBar

Download full text here

Cases penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando PART 1 case no. 1 to 40 [FULL TEXT] .pdf 

Download guide:

If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking advertisements (ads) once a day. 

This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.