G.R. No.

140079

March 31, 2005

AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CI IL SER ICE COMMISSION, !EPARTMENT OF "USTICE a#$ %UREAU OF IMMIGRATION, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.& Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailin the !a" #4, $%%% de&ision,$ as well as the Septe'(er $, $%%% resolution, of the Court of )ppeals *C)+ in C),-.R. SP No. 4./#0 whi&h in turn affir'ed the Nove'(er #1, $%%/ resolution of the Civil Servi&e Co''ission *CSC+. 2he afore'entioned CSC resolution upheld the )u ust 03, $%%1 $ st Indorse'ent of then 4usti&e Se&retar" 2eofisto 2. -uin ona &onfir'in the penalt" of dis'issal fro' servi&e i'posed (" the Bureau of I''i ration upon petitioner on the round of dishonest", oppression, 'is&ondu&t and &ondu&t rossl" pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of the servi&e in &onne&tion with his a&t of e6tortin 'one" fro' !s. 7en Sai 8in, a forei n national. 2he fa&ts, as found (" the C) and adopted (" petitioner hi'self, are as follows9 Petitioner )u usto R. Sa'alio was for'erl" an Intelli en&e Offi&er of the Bureau of I''i ration and Deportation. In Resolution No. 3,%0,3##4 dated :e(ruar" 4, $%%0, the Cit" Prose&utor;s offi&e of Pasa" Cit" re&o''ended that petitioner Sa'alio (e prose&uted for the &ri'es of Ro((er" and <iolation of Se&tion 41 of the I''i ration =aw (efore the Sandi an(a"an under the followin fa&ts9 >6 6 6 that on # :e(ruar" $%%0, !s. 7en Sai 8in arrived at the N)I) fro' Saipan. 7hile waitin for her turn at the arrival i''i ration &ounter, her passport was e6a'ined (" I''i ration Offi&er 4uliet Pa5arilla a. Notin that !s. 7en , a Chinese, was holdin a ?ru ua"an passport, !s. Pa5arilla a suspe&ted that the for'er;s passport was fa@e. !s. 7en was ta@en out of the Aueue and (rou ht to Respondent who was the dut" intelli en&e offi&er. !s. 7en , who &ould onl" spea@ in Chinese, as@ed respondent (" si n lan ua e that she wanted to 'eet a friend who was waitin at the N)I) arrival area. Respondent approved the reAuest and a&&o'panied !s. 7en to the arrival area. 2hereafter, Respondent, with !s. 7en and her 'ale friend in tow, returned to the i''i ration area. 7hile inside the offi&e of Respondent, !s. 7en as@ed that her passport (e returned. Sensin a de'and for 'one" in e6&han e for her passport, !s. 7en flashed B533.33 in front of Respondent. 2he 'one" was ra((ed (" Respondent. Shortl", her passport was returned ans C sicD she was allowed to leave. 7hen !s. 7en &he&@ed her passport later, she dis&overed that it did not (ear an i''i ration arrival sta'p. 2hereafter, !s. 7en &o'plained a ainst Respondent.> In a later Indorse'ent &o''uni&ation dated :e(ruar" %, $%%0 to the Bureau of I''i ration and Deportation *BID+, for'er N)I) -eneral !ana er -en. -uiller'o -. Cunanan en&losed a &op" of the aforesaid Cit" Prose&utor;s Resolution. Rea&tin , then BID Co''issioner, Eafiro =. Respi&io, issued Personnel Order No. %0,$/%,%0 &o''en&in an ad'inistrative &ase a ainst petitioner )u usto R. Sa'alio for <iolation of CS!C No. 41, Rule #, Se&tion $, for dishonest", oppression, 'is&ondu&t, dis ra&eful and i''oral &ondu&t, ineffi&ien&" and in&o'peten&e in the perfor'an&e of offi&ial duties, violation of reasona(le offi&e rules and re ulations and &ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of the servi&e, reAuirin petitioner to su('it his answer to the &har es to ether with supportin state'ents and do&u'ents, and whether or not he ele&ts a for'al investi ation if his answer is not &onsidered satisfa&tor". In the sa'e Personnel Order, Sa'alio was preventivel" suspended for a period of ninet" *%3+ da"s as the &har e sheet a ainst hi' involves dishonest", oppression and 'is&ondu&t. :orthwith, petitioner atte'pted the liftin of his preventive suspension. It was stru&@ down.

=ater on, petitioner su('itted an answer den"in the &har es and e6pressl" ele&tin a for'al investi ation if su&h answer (e not found to (e satisfa&tor". )tta&hed thereto are the affidavits of his witnesses Rodri o C. Pedreal(a, Dante )Auino, :loren&io B. )ustria and 7inston C. <itan. 2he answer was found to (e unsatisfa&tor" so the &ase was set for for'al hearin (efore the Board of Dis&ipline of BID. 2he &ase suffered several postponed hearin s due to the reAuests and non,availa(ilit" of the parties (ut 'ostl" due to the a(sen&e of &o'plainant;s witnesses until on Septe'(er /, $%%0, respondent was allowed to file a 'otion to dis'iss with the Spe&ial Prose&utor desi nated iven ti'e to &o''ent thereon. 7hen the dis'issal 'otion was filed, assi ned Spe&ial Prose&utor Ed'und :. !a&arai interposed no o(5e&tion thereto. Notwithstandin , the &ase was not dis'issed and instead, the Spe&ial Prose&utor was iven five *5+ da"s to infor' the Board whether or not he intends to present additional witnesses. On De&e'(er $1, $%%0, the DID Co''issioner issued Personnel Order No. %0,4#. reor aniFin the Board of Dis&ipline and this &ase was assi ned to a new Board presided (" )tt". Galaw. Su(poenas were a ain sent and hearin s were s&heduled several ti'es (efore the new Board until on :e(ruar" 1, $%%5, Spe&ial Prose&utor assi ned, Ed'und :. !a&arai , 'oved that Sa'alio;s !otion to Dis'iss (e denied and that the &ase (e &onsidered su('itted for resolution (ased on the re&ords. On :e(ruar" $1, $%%5, the hearin offi&er denied Sa'alio;s !otion to Dis'iss (ut ranted his Co''entH!anifestation e6plainin his a(sen&e durin the :e(ruar" 1, $%%5 hearin and reAuestin that the &ase (e set anew on :e(ruar" ##, $%%5. :inall", on 4ul" #5, $%%1, BID )&tin Co''issioner Ra'on 4. =iwa , issued the de&ision findin )u usto R. Sa'alio uilt" of the &har es and was ordered dis'issed fro' servi&e. In the $st Indorse'ent dated )u ust 03, $%%1, for'er 4usti&e Se&retar" 2eofisto 2. -uin ona, 4r. &onfir'ed the penalt" of dis'issal fro' servi&e of )u usto R. Sa'alio. Soon after, the !otion for Re&onsideration was denied in a Resolution dated 4une #, $%%/. -uin ona;s de&ision was appealed to the Civil Servi&e Co''ission whi&h issued Resolution No. %/453$ dated Nove'(er #1, $%%/ dis'issin the appeal for la&@ of 'erit and affir'in the de&isions of )&tin Co''issioner =iwa and Se&retar" -uin ona. Si'ilarl", the atte'pt for a re&onsideration was li@ewise dis'issed in Civil Servi&e Resolution No. %.$%#5. In the 'eanti'e, on 4une $0, $%%4, durin the penden&" of the instant ad'inistrative &ase, )u usto R. Sa'alio was &onvi&ted *in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/%+ of the &ri'e of Ro((er", as defined in )rti&les #%0 and #%4, para raph 5 of the Revised Penal Code and was senten&ed to suffer indeter'inate penalt" of :our *4+ !onths and One *$+ Da" of Arresto Mayor to :our *4+ Iears, 2wo *#+ !onths and Eleven *$$+ Da"s of Prision Correccional and to inde'nif" &o'plainant 7en Sai 8in the a'ount of ?S B533.33 and to pa" the &osts. Sa'alio did not appeal the &onvi&tion and instead applied for and was ranted pro(ation (" the Sandi an(a"an for two *#+ "ears in an Order dated De&e'(er $#, $%%4.#*Citations o'itted+ Petitioner assailed (efore the C), in a petition for review, the &orre&tness and validit" of CSC Resolution Nos. %/453$ and %.$%#5. 2he C), however, dis'issed the petition for review and su(seAuentl" denied the 'otion for re&onsideration. Petitioner now &o'es (efore us to &hallen e the C) de&ision dis'issin his petition for review as well as the resolution den"in his 'otion for re&onsideration. Petitioner &lai's he was not a&&orded due pro&ess and the C) failed to &onsider the proper effe&ts of his dis&har e under pro(ation. In support of his &ontention that he was deprived of due pro&ess, petitioner alle es that no witness or eviden&e was presented a ainst hi', that the C) erred in the interpretation of Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 of the Rules of Court and that there was no hearin &ondu&ted on his &ase.

Petitioner;s &ontention is without 'erit. 2he CSC de&ision and resolution whi&h upheld the resolution of the Se&retar" of 4usti&e &onfir'in the de&ision of the Co''issioner of the BID are supported (" su(stantial eviden&e. 2he CSC, as well as the Se&retar" of 4usti&e and the Co''issioner of the BID, de&ided the &ase on the (asis of the pleadin s and papers su('itted (" the parties, and relied on the re&ords of the pro&eedin s ta@en. In parti&ular, the de&ision was (ased on the &ri'inal &o'plaint filed (" 7en Sai 8in a ainst petitioner (efore the Cit" Prose&utor;s Offi&e of Pasa" Cit", as well as Resolution No. 3,%0,3##4 dated :e(ruar" 4, $%%0 of the sa'e offi&e re&o''endin the prose&ution of petitioner at the Sandi an(a"an for the &ri'es of ro((er" and violation of Se&tion 41 of the I''i ration =aw. 2he CSC, as well as the Se&retar" of 4usti&e, also too@ &o niFan&e of the testi'on" of 7en Sai 8in in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/% and the fa&t of petitioner;s &onvi&tion in that &ase. 2hus, there was a'ple eviden&e whi&h satisfied the (urden of proof reAuired in ad'inistrative pro&eedin s J su(stantial eviden&e or that Auantu' of relevant eviden&e whi&h a reasona(le 'ind 'i ht a&&ept as adeAuate to 5ustif" a &on&lusion0K to support the de&ision of the CSC. 2he CSC and the Se&retar" of 4usti&e did not err in appl"in Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 of the Revised Rules of Court, otherwise @nown as the >rule on for'er testi'on",> in de&idin petitioner;s ad'inistrative &ase. 2he provisions of the Rules of Court 'a" (e applied suppletoril" to the rules of pro&edure of ad'inistrative (odies e6er&isin Auasi,5udi&ial powers, unless otherwise provided (" law or the rules of pro&edure of the ad'inistrative a en&" &on&erned. 2he Rules of Court, whi&h are 'eant to se&ure to ever" liti ant the ad5e&tive phase of due pro&ess of law, 'a" (e applied to pro&eedin s (efore an ad'inistrative (od" with Auasi,5udi&ial powers in the a(sen&e of different and valid statutor" or ad'inistrative provisions pres&ri(in the round rules for the investi ation, hearin and ad5udi&ation of &ases (efore it. 4 :or Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 to appl", the followin reAuisites 'ust (e satisfied9 *a+ the witness is dead or una(le to testif"L *(+ his testi'on" or deposition was iven in a for'er &ase or pro&eedin , 5udi&ial or ad'inistrative, (etween the sa'e parties or those representin the sa'e interestsL *&+ the for'er &ase involved the sa'e su(5e&t as that in the present &ase, althou h on different &auses of a&tionL *d+ the issue testified to (" the witness in the for'er trial is the sa'e issue involved in the present &ase and *e+ the adverse part" had an opportunit" to &ross,e6a'ine the witness in the for'er &ase.5 In this &ase, 7en Sai 8in was una(le to testif" in the ad'inistrative pro&eedin s (efore the BID (e&ause she left the &ountr" on :e(ruar" 1, $%%0,1 or even (efore the ad'inistrative &o'plaint a ainst petitioner was instituted. Petitioner does not den" that the testi'on" of 7en Sai 8in was iven in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/%, a &ase whi&h spran fro' the infor'ation filed pursuant to Resolution No. 3,%0,3##4 dated :e(ruar" 4, $%%0 of the Cit" Prose&utor;s Offi&e of Pasa" Cit", the ver" sa'e resolution used (" Co''issioner Respi&io as (asis for filin the ad'inistrative &o'plaint. Men&e, the issue testified to (" 7en Sai 8in in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/% was the sa'e issue in the ad'inistrative &ase, that is, whether petitioner e6torted 'one" fro' 7en Sai 8in. Petitioner also had the opportunit" to fa&e and &ross,e6a'ine his a&&user 7en Sai 8in, and to defend and vindi&ate his &ause (efore the Sandi an(a"an. Clearl", all the reAuisites for the proper appli&ation of the rule on for'er testi'on", as e'(odied in Se&tion 4/, Rule $03, were satisfied. 2hus, the CSC and the Se&retar" of 4usti&e &o''itted no error when the" applied it and too@ &o niFan&e of the for'er testi'on" of 7en Sai 8in in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/% where petitioner was &onvi&ted. Petitioner &ontends that the C), as well as the CSC and the Se&retar" of 4usti&e, should not have applied Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 (e&ause there was failure to la" the (asis or predi&ate for the rule. 2he ar u'ent is spe&ious and deserves s&ant &onsideration. 2he re&ords of this &ase reveal that even in the earl" sta es of the pro&eedin s (efore the Board of Dis&ipline of the BID, 7en Sai 8in;s departure fro' the &ountr" and &onseAuent ina(ilit" to testif" in the pro&eedin s had alread" (een dis&losed to the parties. / :urther, ad'inistrative (odies are not (ound (" the te&hni&al ni&eties of law and pro&edure and the rules o(tainin in &ourts of law.. )d'inistrative tri(unals e6er&isin Auasi,5udi&ial powers are unfettered (" the ri idit" of &ertain pro&edural reAuire'ents, su(5e&t to the o(servan&e of funda'ental and essential reAuire'ents of due pro&ess in 5usti&ia(le &ases presented (efore the'. % In ad'inistrative pro&eedin s, te&hni&al rules of

pro&edure and eviden&e are not stri&tl" applied and ad'inistrative due pro&ess &annot (e full" eAuated with due pro&ess in its stri&t 5udi&ial sense.$3 2he ?nifor' Rules of Pro&edure in the Condu&t of )d'inistrative Investi ations in the CSC $$ whi&h were appli&a(le to petitioner;s &ase provided that ad'inistrative investi ations shall (e &ondu&ted without ne&essaril" adherin to te&hni&al rules appli&a(le in 5udi&ial pro&eedin s. $# 2he ?nifor' Rules further provided that eviden&e havin 'aterialit" and relevan&e to the ad'inistrative &ase shall (e a&&epted. $0 Not onl" was petitioner;s o(5e&tion to the appli&ation of Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 a te&hni&alit" that &ould (e disre ardedL the testi'on" of 7en Sai 8in in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/% was also 'aterial and relevant to the ad'inistrative &ase. Men&e, the CSC was &orre&t in appl"in Se&tion 4/, Rule $03 when it too@ &o niFan&e of the for'er testi'on" of 7en Sai 8in in the afore'entioned &ri'inal &ase. Petitioner;s assertion that there was no hearin *that he was deprived of the opportunit" to (e heard+ is li@ewise without 'erit. )pparentl", petitioner;s &on&ept of the opportunit" to (e heard is the opportunit" to ventilate one;s side in a for'al hearin where he &an have a fa&e,to,fa&e &onfrontation with the &o'plainant. Mowever, it is well,settled that, in ad'inistrative &ases, the reAuire'ent of noti&e and hearin does not &onnote full adversarial pro&eedin s.$4 Due pro&ess in an ad'inistrative &onte6t does not reAuire trial,t"pe pro&eedin s si'ilar to those in &ourts of 5usti&e. 7here opportunit" to (e heard either throu h oral ar u'ents or throu h pleadin s is a&&orded, there is no denial of pro&edural due pro&ess.$5 ) for'al or trial,t"pe hearin is not at all ti'es and in all instan&es essential. 2he reAuire'ents are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasona(le opportunit" to e6plain their side of the &ontrovers" at hand.$1 2he standard of due pro&ess that 'ust (e 'et in ad'inistrative tri(unals allows a &ertain de ree of latitude as lon as fairness is not i nored. $/ In other words, it is not le all" o(5e&tiona(le for (ein violative of due pro&ess for an ad'inistrative a en&" to resolve a &ase (ased solel" on position papers, afidavits or do&u'entar" eviden&e su('itted (" the parties as affidavits of witnesses 'a" ta@e the pla&e of their dire&t testi'on". $. In this &ase, petitioner was heard throu h the various pleadin s whi&h he filed with the Board of Dis&ipline of the BID when he filed his answer $% and two 'otions to dis'iss,#3 as well as other 'otions and papers. Me was also a(le to parti&ipate in all sta es of the ad'inistrative pro&eedin . Me was a(le to elevate his &ase to the Se&retar" of 4usti&e and, su(seAuentl", to the CSC (" wa" of appeal. 7e have &onsistentl" held that the essen&e of due pro&ess is si'pl" the opportunit" to (e heard or, as applied to ad'inistrative pro&eedin s, the opportunit" to e6plain one;s side or the opportunit" to see@ a re&onsideration of the a&tion or rulin &o'plained of.#$ )nd an" see'in defe&t in its o(servan&e is &ured (" the filin of a 'otion for re&onsideration.## Denial of due pro&ess &annot (e su&&essfull" invo@ed (" a part" who has had the opportunit" to (e heard on his 'otion for re&onsideration. #0 Petitioner hi'self ad'its that he filed a 'otion for re&onsideration #4 of the de&ision of the BID whi&h was &onfir'ed (" the Se&retar" of 4usti&e. Me also ad'its that he filed a 'otion for re&onsideration #5 with the CSC. Men&e, (" his own ad'ission, petitioner;s protestations that he had (een deprived of due pro&ess 'ust ne&essaril" fail. Petitioner &lai's that when the Sandi an(a"an approved his pro(ation in the &ri'inal &ase, it restored hi' to all &ivil ri hts lost or suspended as a result of his &onvi&tion, in&ludin the ri ht to re'ain in overn'ent servi&e. Petitioner &ites the &ase of Baclayon v. Mutia, et al.#1 where the rant of pro(ation suspended the i'position not onl" of the prin&ipal penalties (ut of the a&&essor" penalties as well. Petitioner;s &ontention is 'ispla&ed. :irst, the Baclayon &ase is not in point. In that &ase, no ad'inistrative &o'plaint was instituted a ainst the pu(li& offi&er, a pu(li& s&hool tea&her, durin the penden&" of the &ri'inal &ase a ainst her and even after her &onvi&tion. 2here (ein no ad'inistrative &ase instituted a ainst the pu(li& offi&er and no ad'inistrative lia(ilit" havin (een i'posed, there was no ad'inistrative san&tion that &ould have (een suspended (" the rant of pro(ation.

Se&ond, dis'issal is not an a&&essor" penalt" either of prision correccional #/ or arresto mayor,#. the ran e of penalt" i'posed upon petitioner in Sandi an(a"an Cri'inal Case No. $.1/%. Men&e, even assu'in arguendothat petitioner;s &ontention was &orre&t, the rant of pro(ation &ould not have resulted in the suspension of an a&&essor" penalt" li@e dis'issal that does not even e6ist. 2hird, >to suspend> 'eans >to stop te'poraril"L to dis&ontinue> #% or >to &ause to (e inter'itted or interrupted.>032he re&ords of this &ase show that petitioner was ranted pro(ation in an order dated De&e'(er $#, $%%#0$ of the Se&ond Division of the Sandi an(a"an. Me was dis'issed fro' the servi&e in the de&ision dated 4ul" #5, $%%10# of the BID Co''issioner. Sin&e the rant of pro(ation was ranted lon (efore the ad'inistrative &ase was de&ided, the pro(ation &ould not have possi(l" suspended the i'position of the penalt" of dis'issal fro' the servi&e in the ad'inistrative &ase sin&e there was no ad'inistrative penalt" that &ould have (een interrupted (" the pro(ation at the ti'e it was ranted. Indeed, petitioner;s dis&har e on pro(ation &ould not have restored or reinstated hi' to his e'plo"'ent in overn'ent servi&e sin&e he had not (een "et (een dis'issed therefro' at the ti'e of his dis&har e. :inall", even if dis'issal had (een one of the a&&essor" penalties of the prin&ipal penalt" i'posed upon petitioner in the &ri'inal &ase, and even if the ad'inistrative &ase had (een de&ided earlier than the &ri'inal &ase, still the i'position of the penalt" of dis'issal &ould not have (een suspended (" the rant of pro(ation. )s petitioner hi'self &ontends, the &ri'inal a&tion is separate and distin&t fro' the ad'inistrative &ase. )nd, if onl" for that reason, so is ad'inistrative lia(ilit" separate and distin&t fro' penal lia(ilit". 00 Men&e, pro(ation affe&ts onl" the &ri'inal aspe&t of the &ase,04 not its ad'inistrative di'ension. '(EREFORE, the petition is here(" DEnIed. 2he assailed de&ision of the Court of )ppeals in C),-.R. SP No. 4./#0 dated !a" #4, $%%%, affir'in the de&ision and resolution of the Civil Servi&e Co''ission is )::IR!ED. G.R. No. 1771)) !*c*+,*r 4, 200)

EL GRECO S(IP MANNING AN! MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent. !ECISION C(ICO-NA.ARIO, J.& Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, filed (" petitioner El -re&o Ship !annin and !ana e'ent Corporation *El -re&o+, see@in to reverse and set aside the De&ision$ of the Court of 2a6 )ppeals *C2)+ En Ban& dated $4 !ar&h #33/ in C.2.). EB No. $1#. In its assailed De&ision, the C2) En Banc affir'ed the De&ision# dated $/ O&to(er #335 of the C2) Se&ond Division in C2) Case No. 11$., orderin the forfeiture of the vessel !H< Criston, also @nown as !H< Neptune BreeFe, for havin (een involved in the s'u lin of 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e. 2he fa&tual and pro&edural ante&edents of this &ase are as follows9 On #0 Septe'(er #33$, the vessel !H< Criston do&@ed at the Port of 2a(a&o, )l(a", &arr"in a ship'ent of 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e, &onsi ned to )ntonio Chua, 4r. *Chua+ and Carlos Carillo *Carillo+, pa"a(le upon its deliver" to )l(a". -lu&er Shippin Co'pan", In&. *-lu&er Shippin + is the operator of !H< Criston. 0 ?pon the dire&tive of then Co''issioner 2itus <illanueva of the Bureau of Custo's *BOC+, a 7arrant of SeiFure and Detention, S*/01r* I$*#2/3/ca2/o# No. 04-2001, was issued (" the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor, on #0 Septe'(er #33$ for the 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e shipped (" !H< Criston, on the round that it left the Port of !anila without the ne&essar" &learan&e fro' the Philippine Coast -uard. Sin&e the earlier 7arrant &overed onl" the &ar o, (ut not !H< Criston whi&h transported it, a su(seAuent 7arrant of SeiFure and Detention , S*/01r* I$*#2/3/ca2/o# No. 04-2001-A, was issued on $. O&to(er #33$ parti&ularl" for the said vessel. 2he BOC Distri&t Colle&tor of the Port of =e aspi thereafter &o''en&ed pro&eedin s for the forfeiture of !H<

Criston and its &ar o under SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$, respe&tivel". 4 2o prote&t their propert" ri hts over the &ar o, &onsi nees Chua and Carillo filed (efore the Re ional 2rial Court *R2C+ of 2a(a&o, )l(a", a Petition for Prohi(ition with Pra"er for the Issuan&e of Preli'inar" In5un&tion and 2e'porar" Restrainin Order *2RO+ assailin the authorit" of the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tors to issue the 7arrants of SeiFure and Detention and pra"in for a per'anent in5un&tion a ainst the i'ple'entation of the said 7arrants. 2heir Petition was do&@eted as Civil Case No. 2,#$/3. 5 )fter findin the Petition suffi&ient in for' and su(stan&e and &onsiderin the e6tre'e ur en&" of the 'atter involved, the R2C issued a /#,hour 2RO &onditioned upon the filin (" Chua and Carillo of a (ond in the a'ount of P0$,453,333.33, representin the value of the oods. )fter Chua and Carillo posted the reAuired (ond, the 05,333 (a s of ri&e were released to the'. 1 2he =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor held in a(e"an&e the pro&eedin s for the forfeiture of !H< Criston and its &ar o under SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) pendin the resolution (" the R2C of Civil Case No. 2,#$/3. 7hen the R2C ranted the !otion to Dis'iss Civil Case No. 2,#$/3 filed (" the BOC, the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor set the hearin of SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,). ) noti&e of the s&heduled hearin of the afore'entioned seiFure &ases was sent to -lu&er Shippin (ut it failed to appear at the hearin so set. )fter a se&ond noti&e of hearin was i nored (" -lu&er Shippin , the prose&utor was allowed to present his witnesses. / In the 'eanti'e, while !H< Criston was (erthin at the Port of 2a(a&o under the &ustod" of the BOC, the Provin&e of )l(a" was hit (" t"phoon >!anan .> In order to avert an" da'a e whi&h &ould (e &aused (" the t"phoon, the vessel was allowed to pro&eed to another an&hora e area to te'poraril" see@ shelter. )fter t"phoon >!anan > had passed throu h )l(a" provin&e, !H< Criston, however, failed to return to the Port of 2a(a&o and was nowhere to (e found.. )lar'ed, the BOC and the Philippine Coast -uard &oordinated with the Philippine )ir :or&e to find the 'issin vessel. On . Nove'(er #33$, the BOC re&eived infor'ation that !H< Criston was found in the waters of Bataan sportin the na'e of !H< Neptune BreeFe. % Based on the a(ove infor'ation and for failure of !H< Neptune BreeFe to present a &learan&e fro' its last port of &all, a 7arrant of SeiFure and Detention under S*/01r* I$*#2/3/ca2/o# No. 2001-20) was issued a ainst the vessel (" the BOC Distri&t Colle&tor of the Port of !anila.$3 :or the sa'e reasons, the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor rendered a De&ision on #/ 4une #33# in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) orderin the forfeiture of the !H< Criston, also @nown as !H< Neptune BreeFe, and its &ar o, for violatin Se&tion #503 *a+, *f+ and *@+ of the 2ariff and Custo's Code.$$ In the 'eanti'e, El -re&o, the dul" authoriFed lo&al a ent of the re istered owner of !H< Neptune BreeFe, )tlanti& Pa&ifi& Corporation, In&. *)tlanti& Pa&ifi&+, filed with the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor, in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3., a !otion for Intervention and !otion to 8uash 7arrant of SeiFure Detention with ?r ent Pra"er for the I''ediate Release of !H< Neptune BreeFe. El -re&o &lai'ed that !H< Neptune BreeFe was a forei n re istered vessel owned (" )tlanti& Pa&ifi&, and different fro' !H< Criston whi&h had (een involved in s'u lin a&tivities in =e aspi, )l(a". $# )&tin favora(l" on the 'otion of El -re&o, the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor issued an Order $0 dated $$ !ar&h #33# Auashin the 7arrant of SeiFure and Detention it issued a ainst !H< Neptune BreeFe in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3. for la&@ of pro(a(le &ause that the said vessel was the sa'e one @nown as !H< Criston whi&h fled fro' the 5urisdi&tion of the BOC =e aspi Distri&t after (ein seiFed and detained therein for alle edl" en a in in s'u lin a&tivities. )&&ordin to the de&retal part of the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor;s Order9 7MERE:ORE, pursuant to the authorit" vested in 'e (" law, it is here(" ordered and de&reed that the 7arrant of SeiFure and Detention issued thereof (e 8uashed for want of fa&tual or le al (asis, and

that the vessel >!H< Neptune BrreFe> (e released to CEl -re&oD after &learan&e with the Co''issioner of Custo's, proper identifi&ation and &o'plian&e with e6istin rules and re ulations pertinent in the pre'ises. On auto'ati& review (" BOC Co''issioner )ntonio Bernardo, the Order dated $$ !ar&h #33# of the Distri&t Colle&tor of the Port of !anila was reversed after findin that !H< Neptune BreeFe and !H< Criston were one and the sa'e and that the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor had alread" a&Auired prior 5urisdi&tion over the vessel. 2he De&ision dated $5 4anuar" #330 of the BOC Co''issioner, &ontained in his # nd Indorse'ent$4 to the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor, de&reed9 Respe&tfull" returned to the Distri&t Colle&tor, PO!, the within &ase folders in PO! S. I. No. #33$,#3., E= -RECO SMIP !)NNIN- )ND !)N)-E!EN2 CORPOR)2ION, Clai'antHIntervenor, with the infor'ation that the De&ision of that Port in the aforesaid &ase is here(" RE<ERSED in view of the followin reasons9 $. Su(5e&t vessel !< >NEP2?NE BREEEE> and !< >CRIS2ON> are one and the sa'e as shown (" the vessels do&u'ents retrieved (" the ele'ents of the Philippine Coast -uard fro' !< >CRIS2ON> durin the sear&h &ondu&ted on (oard thereof when the sa'e was apprehended in 2a(a&o, )l(a", indi&atin therein the na'e of the vessel !< >NEP2?NE BREEEE,> the na'e of the 'aster of the vessel a &ertain I?SM)7? )7?D?, et&. 2hese fa&ts were &orro(orated (" the foota e of )BS,CBN ta@en on (oard the vessel when the sa'e was su(5e&ted to sear&h. #. Men&e, prior 5urisdi&tion over the said vessel was alread" a&Auired (" the Port of =e aspi when the said Port issued 7SD S.I. No. 31,#33$,) and therefore, the De&ision of the latter Port forfeitin the su(5e&t vessel super&edes the De&ision of that Port orderin its release. See@in the reversal of the De&ision dated $5 4anuar" #330 of the BOC Co''issioner, El -re&o filed a Petition for Review with the C2) whi&h was lod ed (efore its Se&ond Division as C2) Case No. 11$.. El -re&o averred that the BOC Co''issioner &o''itted rave a(use of dis&retion in orderin the forfeiture of the !H< Neptune BreeFe in the a(sen&e of proof that !H< Neptune BreeFe and !H< Criston were one and the sa'e vessel.$5)&&ordin to El -re&o, it was hi hl" i'pro(a(le that !H< Criston was 'erel" assu'in the identit" of !H< Neptune BreeFe in order to evade lia(ilit" sin&e these were distin&t and separate vessels as eviden&ed (" their Certifi&ates of Re istr". 7hile !H< Neptune BreeFe was re istered in St. <in&ent and the -renadines$1 as shown in its Certifi&ate of Re istr" No. /#%.HN, !H< Criston was re istered in the Philippines. )dditionall", El -re&o ar ued that the Order dated $$ !ar&h #33# of the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor alread" (e&a'e final and e6e&utor" for failure of the BOC Co''issioner to a&t thereon within a period of 03 da"s in a&&ordan&e with Se&tion #0$0 of the 2ariff and Custo's Code. On $/ O&to(er #335, the C2) Se&ond Division rendered a De&ision $/ in C2) Case No. 11$. sustainin the $5 4anuar" #330 De&ision of the BOC Co''issioner orderin the forfeiture of !H< Neptune BreeFe. Referrin to the &ri'e la(orator" report su('itted (" the Philippine National Poli&e *PNP+ statin that the serial nu'(ers of the en ines and the enerators of (oth !H< Criston and !H< Neptune BreeFe were identi&al, the C2) Se&ond Division &on&luded that (oth vessels were indeed one and the sa'e vessel. 2he C2) Se&ond Division further ruled that nothin in the provisions of Se&tion #0$0 of the 2ariff and Custo's Code &ould (uttress El -re&o;s &ontention that the Order dated $$ !ar&h #33# of the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor alread" (e&a'e final and e6e&utor". 2he dispositive portion of the De&ision of the C2) Se&ond Division reads9 7MERE:ORE, pre'ises &onsidered, the present Petition for Review is here(" !ISMISSE!. 2he De&ision in the #nd Indorse'ent dated 4anuar" $5, #330 of then Co''issioner Bernardo is here(" AFFIRME!.$. In a Resolution$% dated / :e(ruar" #331, the C2) Se&ond Division denied the !otion for Re&onsideration of El -re&o for failure to present issues that had not (een previousl" threshed out in its earlier De&ision.

?ndaunted, El -re&o elevated its &ase to the C2) En Banc throu h a Petition for Review, do&@eted as C.2.). EB No. $1#, this ti'e la'entin that it was (ein deprived of its propert" without due pro&ess of law. El -re&o asserted that the C2) Se&ond Division violated its &onstitutional ri ht to due pro&ess when it upheld the forfeiture of !H< Neptune BreeFe on the (asis of the eviden&e presented (efore the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,), of whi&h El -re&o was not notified and in whi&h it was not a(le to parti&ipate. #3 In its De&ision#$ pro'ul ated on $4 !ar&h #33/, the C2) En Banc de&lared that the C2) Se&ond Division did not &o''it an" error in its disAuisition, and dis'issed the Petition of El -re&o in C.2.). EB No. $1# for la&@ of 'erit. )&&ordin to the C2) En Banc, the appre&iation and &ali(ration of eviden&e on appeal *fro' the rulin of the BOC+ lies within the sound dis&retion of its Division, and the latter;s findin s and &on&lusions &annot (e set aside unless it has (een suffi&ientl" shown that the" are not supported (" eviden&e on re&ord. 2he C2) En Banc thus disposed9 7MERE:ORE, the instant petition is here(" DIS!ISSED. )&&ordin l", the assailed De&ision pro'ul ated on O&to(er $/, #335 and Resolution dated :e(ruar" /, #331 of the Se&ond Division of this Court, are here(" )::IR!ED.## 7ithout filin a !otion for Re&onsideration with the C2), El -re&o alread" sou ht re&ourse (efore this Court via this Petition for Review on Certiorari, raisin the followin issues9 I. 7ME2MER OR NO2 E= -RECO 7)S DENIED O: I2S RI-M2 2O D?E PROCESS. II. 7ME2MER OR NO2 !H< NEP2?NE BREEEE )ND !H< CRIS2ON )RE ONE )ND 2ME S)!E <ESSE=. III. 7ME2MER OR NO2 !H< NEP2?NE BREEEE IS 8?)=I:IED 2O BE 2ME S?B4EC2 O: :OR:EI2?RE ?NDER SEC2ION #50$ O: 2ME 2)RI:: )ND C?S2O!S CODE. 2he pri'ordial issue to (e deter'ined (" this Court is whether !H< Neptune BreeFe is one and the sa'e as !H< Criston whi&h had (een detained at the Port of 2a(a&o, )l(a", for &arr"in s'u led i'ported ri&e and had fled the &ustod" of the &usto's authorities to evade its lia(ilities. El -re&o insists that !H< Neptune BreeFe and !H< Criston are not the sa'e vessel. In support of its position, El -re&o a ain presents the forei n re istration of its vessel as opposed to the lo&al re istration of !H< Criston. 2he C2) En Banc, however, affir'in the findin s of the C2) Se&ond Division, as well as the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor, &on&luded otherwise. 7e sustain the deter'ination of the C2) En Banc on this 'atter. 7ell,entren&hed is the rule that findin s of fa&ts of the C2) are (indin on this Court and &an onl" (e distur(ed on appeal if not supported (" su(stantial eviden&e.#0 Su(stantial eviden&e is that a'ount of relevant eviden&e whi&h a reasona(le 'ind 'i ht a&&ept as adeAuate to 5ustif" a &on&lusion. #4 ) review of the re&ords of the present &ase unveils the overwhel'in and utterl" si nifi&ant pie&es of eviden&e that 'ore than 'eets the Auantu' of eviden&e ne&essar" to esta(lish that !H< Neptune BreeFe is the ver" sa'e vessel as !H< Criston, whi&h left the an&hora e area at =e aspi, )l(a", without the &onsent of the &usto's authorities therein while under detention for s'u lin 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e.

2he &ri'e la(orator" report of the PNP shows that the serial nu'(ers of the en ines and enerators of the two vessels are identi&al. El -re&o failed to re(ut this pie&e of eviden&e that de&isivel" identified !H< Neptune BreeFe as the sa'e as !H< Criston. 7e ta@e 5udi&ial noti&e that alon with ross tonna e, net tonna e, len th and (readth of the vessel, the serial nu'(ers of its en ine and enerator are the ne&essar" infor'ation identif"in a vessel. In 'u&h the sa'e wa", the identit" of a land 'otor vehi&le is esta(lished (" its uniAue 'otor and &hassis nu'(ers. It is, thus, hi hl" i'pro(a(le that two totall" different vessels would have en ines and enerators (earin the ver" sa'e serial nu'(ersL and the onl" lo i&al &on&lusion is that the" 'ust (e one and the sa'e vessel. EAuall" si nifi&ant is the findin of the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor that all the do&u'ents su('itted (" !H< Criston were spurious, in&ludin its supposed re istration in the Philippines. In a letter dated $4 !ar&h #33#, !arina )d'inistrator Os&ar !. Sevilla attested that !H< Criston was not re istered with the !arina. :inall", Custo's -uard )dolfo Capistrano testified that the features of !H< Criston and !H< Neptune BreeFe were si'ilarL while Coast -uard Co''ander Cirilo OrtiF narrated that he found do&u'ents inside !H< Criston (earin the na'e !H< Neptune BreeFe. 2hese testi'onies further fortified the &on&lusion rea&hed (" the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor that !H< Criston and !H< Neptune BreeFe were one and the sa'e. 7e also ta@e note that the purported operator of !H< Criston, -lu&er Shippin , was a total no,show at the hearin s held in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) (efore the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor. Despite (ein sent several noti&es of hearin to its supposed address, -lu&er Shippin still failed to appear in the said pro&eedin s. It (e&o'es hi hl" unfatho'a(le for an owner to i nore pro&eedin s for the seiFure of its vessel, ris@in the loss of a propert" of enor'ous value. :ro' the fore oin , we &an onl" dedu&e that there is a&tuall" no -lu&er Shippin and no !H< Criston. !H< Criston appears to (e a 'ere fi&tional identit" assu'ed (" !H< Neptune BreeFe so it 'a" &ondu&t its s'u lin a&tivities with little ris@ of (ein identified and held lia(le therefor. 7e &annot ive 'u&h &reden&e to the self,servin denial (" El -re&o that !H< Neptune BreeFe is not the sa'e as !H< Criston in li ht of the su(stantial eviden&e on re&ord to the &ontrar". 2he forei n re istration of !H< Neptune BreeFe proves onl" that it was re istered in a forei n &ountr"L (ut it does not render i'possi(le the &on&lusions &onsistentl" rea&hed (" the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor, the C2) Se&ond Division and the C2) en (an&, and presentl" (" this Court, that !H< Neptune BreeFe was the ver" sa'e vessel used in the &ondu&t of s'u lin a&tivities in the na'e !H< Criston. Neither &an we per'it El -re&o to evade the forfeiture of its vessel, as a &onseAuen&e of its (ein used in s'u lin a&tivities, (" de&r"in denial of due pro&ess. In ad'inistrative pro&eedin s, su&h as those (efore the BOC, te&hni&al rules of pro&edure and eviden&e are not stri&tl" applied and ad'inistrative due pro&ess &annot (e full" eAuated with due pro&ess in its stri&t 5udi&ial sense.#5 2he essen&e of due pro&ess is si'pl" an opportunit" to (e heard or, as applied to ad'inistrative pro&eedin s, an opportunit" to e6plain oneNs side or an opportunit" to see@ re&onsideration of the a&tion or rulin &o'plained of.#1 )lthou h it was not a(le to parti&ipate in the pro&eedin s in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) (efore the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor, it had a'ple opportunit" to present its side of the &ontrovers" in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3. (efore the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor. 2o re&all, full pro&eedin s were held (efore the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3.. Even the eviden&e presented (" El -re&o in the latter pro&eedin s fails to persuade. 2he onl" vital eviden&e it presented (efore the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3. was the forei n re istration of !H< Neptune BreeFe. It was still the sa'e pie&e of eviden&e whi&h El -re&o su('itted to this Court. Even when ta@en into &onsideration and wei hed a ainst ea&h other, the &onsidera(l" sparse eviden&e of El -re&o in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. #33$,#3. &ould not su&&essfull" refute the su(stantial eviden&e in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$,) that !H< Neptune BreeFe is the sa'e as !H< Criston.

!oreover, the &lai' of El -re&o that it was denied due pro&ess flounders in li ht of its a'ple opportunit" to re(ut the findin s of the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&tor in SeiFure Identifi&ation No. 31,#33$ and No. 31,#33$,) (efore the C2) Se&ond Division in C2) Case No. 11$. and the C2) En Banc in C.2.). EB No. $1#, and now (efore this Court in the Petition at (ar. ?nfortunatel", El -re&o was una(le to 'a@e full use to its advanta e of these repeated opportunities (" offerin all possi(le eviden&e in support of its &ase. :or e6a'ple, eviden&e that &ould esta(lish that !H< Neptune BreeFe was so'ewhere else at the ti'e when !H< Criston was (ein held (" &usto's authorit" at the Port of =e aspi, )l(a", would have (een helpful to El -re&o;s &ause and ver" eas" to se&ure, (ut is larin l" a(sent herein. )fter havin esta(lished that !H< Neptune BreeFe is one and the sa'e as !H< Criston, we &o'e to another &ru&ial issue in the &ase at (ar, that is, whether the order of forfeiture of the !H< Neptune BreeFe is valid. 2he pertinent provisions of the 2ariff and Custo's Code read9 SEC. #503. Property Subject to Forfeiture nder !ariff and Customs "a# . J )n" vehi&le, vessel or air&raft, &ar o, arti&les and other o(5e&ts shall, under the followin &onditions, (e su(5e&t to forfeiture9 a. )n" vehi&le, vessel or air&raft, in&ludin &ar o, whi&h shall (e used unlawfull" in the i'portation or e6portation of arti&les or in &onve"in andHor transportin &ontra(and or s'u led arti&les in &o''er&ial Auantities into or fro' an" Philippine port or pla&e. 2he 'ere &arr"in or holdin on (oard of &ontra(and or s'u led arti&les in &o''er&ial Auantities shall su(5e&t su&h vessel, vehi&le, air&raft or an" other &raft to forfeitureL Provided, 2hat the vessel, or air&raft or an" other &raft is not used as dul" authoriFed &o''on &arrier and as su&h a &arrier it is not &hartered or leasedL 6666 f. )n" arti&le, the i'portation or e6portation of whi&h is effe&ted or atte'pted &ontrar" to law, or an" arti&le of prohi(ited i'portation or e6portation, and all other arti&les whi&h, in the opinion of the Colle&tor, have (een used, are or were intended to (e used as instru'ents in the i'portation or e6portation of the for'erL 6666 @. )n" &onve"an&e a&tuall" (ein used for the transport of arti&les su(5e&t to forfeiture under the tariff and &usto's laws, with its eAuipa e or trappin s, and an" vehi&le si'ilarl" used, to ether with its eAuipa e and appurtenan&es in&ludin the (east, stea' or other 'otive power drawin or propellin the sa'e. 2he 'ere &onve"an&e of &ontra(and or s'u led arti&les (" su&h (east or vehi&le shall (e suffi&ient &ause for the outri ht seiFure and &onfis&ation of su&h (east or vehi&le, (ut the forfeiture shall not (e effe&ted if it is esta(lished that the owner of the 'eans of &onve"an&e used as aforesaid, is en a ed as &o''on &arrier and not &hartered or leased, or his a ent in &har e thereof at the ti'e has no @nowled e of the unlawful a&t. 2he penalt" of forfeiture is i'posed on an" vessel en a ed in s'u are present9 lin , provided that the followin &onditions

*$+ 2he vessel is >used unlawfull" in the i'portation or e6portation of arti&les into or fro'> the PhilippinesL *#+ 2he arti&les are i'ported to or e6ported fro' >an" Philippine port or pla&e, e6&ept a port of entr">L or *0+ If the vessel has a &apa&it" of less than 03 tons and is >used in the i'portation of arti&les into an" Philippine port or pla&e other than a port of the Sulu Sea, where i'portation in su&h vessel 'a" (e authoriFed (" the Co''issioner, with the approval of the depart'ent head.> #/ 2here is no Auestion that !H< Neptune BreeFe, then @nown as !H< Criston, was &arr"in 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e without the ne&essar" papers showin that the" were entered lawfull" throu h a Philippine port

after the pa"'ent of appropriate ta6es and duties thereon. 2his ives rise to the presu'ption that su&h i'portation was ille al. ConseAuentl", the ri&e su(5e&t of the i'portation, as well as the vessel !H< Neptune BreeFe used in i'portation are su(5e&t to forfeiture. 2he (urden is on El -re&o, as the owner of !H< Neptune BreeFe, to show that its &onve"an&e of the ri&e was a&tuall" le al. ?nfortunatel", its &lai' that the &ar o was not of forei n ori in (ut was 'erel" loaded at North Mar(or, !anila, was (elied (" the followin eviden&e , the In&o'in 4ournal of the Philippine Coast -uard, Certifi&ation issued (" the Depart'ent of 2ransportation and Co''uni&ations *DO2C+ Port State Control Center of !anila, and the letter dated 4 O&to(er #33$ issued (" the Su(,Port of North Mar(or Colle&tor Edward de la Cuesta, &onfir'in that there was no su&h loadin of ri&e or &allin of vessel o&&urrin at North Mar(or, !anila. It is, therefore, un&ontroverted that the 05,333 (a s of i'ported ri&e were s'u led into the Philippines usin !H< Neptune BreeFe. 7e &annot ive &reden&e to the ar u'ent of El -re&o that the Order dated $$ !ar&h #33# of the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor, findin no pro(a(le &ause that !H< Neptune BreeFe is the sa'e as !H< Criston, has alread" (e&o'e final and e6e&utor", thus, irreversi(le, pursuant to Se&tion #0$0 of the 2ariff and Custo's Code. )&&ordin to said provision9 SEC. #0$0. $evie# of Commissioner. J 2he person a rieved (" the de&ision or a&tion of the Colle&tor in an" 'atter presented upon protest or (" his a&tion in an" &ase of seiFure 'a", within fifteen *$5+ da"s after notifi&ation in writin (" the Colle&tor of his a&tion or de&ision, file a written noti&e to the Colle&tor with a &op" furnished to the Co''issioner of his intention to appeal the a&tion or de&ision of the Colle&tor to the Co''issioner. 2hereupon the Colle&tor shall forthwith trans'it all the re&ords of the pro&eedin s to the Co''issioner, who shall approve, 'odif" or reverse the a&tion or de&ision of the Colle&tor and ta@e su&h steps and 'a@e su&h orders as 'a" (e ne&essar" to ive effe&t to his de&ision9 Provided, 2hat when an appeal is filed (e"ond the period herein pres&ri(ed, the sa'e shall (e dee'ed dis'issed. If in an" seiFure pro&eedin s, the Colle&tor renders a de&ision adverse to the -overn'ent, su&h de&ision shall (e auto'ati&all" reviewed (" the Co''issioner and the re&ords of the &ase elevated within five *5+ da"s fro' the pro'ul ation of the de&ision of the Colle&tor. 2he Co''issioner shall render a de&ision on the auto'ati& appeal within thirt" *03+ da"s fro' re&eipts of the re&ords of the &ase. If the Colle&tor;s de&ision is reversed (" the Co''issioner, the de&ision of the Co''issioner shall (e final and e6e&utor". Mowever, if the Colle&tor;s de&ision is affir'ed, or /3 5/2h/# 2h/r26 7308 $a69 3ro+ r*c*/:2 o3 2h* r*cor$ o3 2h* ca9* ,6 2h* Co++/99/o#*r #o $*c/9/o# /9 r*#$*r*$ or the de&ision involves i'ported arti&les whose pu(lished value is five 'illion pesos *P5,333,333.33+ or 'ore, 91ch $*c/9/o# 9ha;; ,* $**+*$ a12o+a2/ca;;6 a::*a;*$ 2o 2h* S*cr*2ar6 o3 F/#a#c* and the re&ords of the pro&eedin s shall (e elevated within five *5+ da"s fro' the pro'ul ation of the de&ision of the Co''issioner or of the Colle&tor under appeal, as the &ase 'a" (e9 Provided, further, 2hat if the de&ision of the Co''issioner or of the Colle&tor under appeal as the &ase 'a" (e, is affir'ed (" the Se&retar" of :inan&e or if within thirt" *03+ da"s fro' re&eipt of the re&ords of the pro&eedin s (" the Se&retar" of :inan&e, no de&ision is rendered, the de&ision of the Se&retar" of :inan&e, or of the Co''issioner, or of the Colle&tor under appeal, as the &ase 'a" (e, shall (e&o'e final and e6e&utor". In an" seiFure pro&eedin , the release of i'ported arti&les shall not (e allowed unless and until a de&ision of the Colle&tor has (een &onfir'ed in writin (" the Co''issioner of Custo's. *E'phasis ours.+ 2here is nothin in Se&tion #0$0 of the 2ariff and Custo's Code to support the position of El -re&o. )s the C2)en banc e6plained, in &ase the BOC Co''issioner fails to de&ide on the auto'ati& appeal of the Colle&tor;s De&ision within 03 da"s fro' re&eipt of the re&ords thereof, the &ase shall a ain (e dee'ed auto'ati&all" appealed to the Se&retar" of :inan&e. )lso wor@in a ainst El -re&o is the fa&t that 5urisdi&tion over !H< Neptune BreeFe, otherwise @nown as !H< Criston, was first a&Auired (" the =e aspi Distri&t Colle&torL thus, the !anila Distri&t Colle&tor &annot validl" a&Auire 5urisdi&tion over the sa'e vessel. 4ud 'ent rendered without 5urisdi&tion is null and void, and void 5ud 'ent &annot (e the sour&e of an" ri ht whatsoever. #. :inall", we stron l" &onde'n the plo" used (" !H< Neptune BreeFe, assu'in a different identit" to s'u le oods into the &ountr" in a (raFen atte'pt to defraud the overn'ent and the :ilipino pu(li& and deprive the'

of 'u&h needed 'onetar" resour&es. 7e further laud the efforts of the Co''issioner of the Custo's Bureau and the other e6e&utive offi&ials in his depart'ent to &ur( the proliferation of s'u lin s"ndi&ates in the &ountr" whi&h deserves no less than our full support. '(EREFORE, in view of the fore oin , the instant Petition is !ENIE!. 2he De&ision dated $/ O&to(er #335 and Resolution dated / :e(ruar" #331 of the Court of 2a6 )ppeals En Banc in C2) EB No. $/# are AFFIRME!. Costs a ainst the petitioner. G.R. No. 157434 Ma6 14, 2005

MA<ON (OTEL = RESTAURANT, PACITA O. PO a#$>or "OSEFA PO LAM, petitioners, vs. ROLAN!O A!ANA, C(ONA %UMALA<, ROGER %URCE, E!UAR!O ALAMARES, AMA!O ALAMARES, E!GAR!O TORREFRANCA, LOUR!ES CAMIGLA, TEO!ORO LAURENARIA, 'ENEFRE!O LO ERES, LUIS GUA!ES, AMA!O MACAN!OG, PATERNO LLARENA, GREGORIO NICERIO, "OSE ATRACTI O, MIGUEL TORREFRANCA, a#$ SANTOS %RO?OLA, respondents. DECISION PUNO, J.& 2his is a petition for certiorari to reverse and set aside the De&ision issued (" the Court of )ppeals *C)+ $ in C), -.R. SP No. 1.14#, entitled >Rolando )dana, 7enefredo =overes, et. al. vs. National =a(or Relations Co''ission *N=RC+, !a"on Motel O RestaurantHPa&ita O. Po, et al.,> and the Resolution # den"in petitionersN 'otion for re&onsideration. 2he assailed C) de&ision reversed the N=RC De&ision whi&h had dis'issed all of respondentsN &o'plaints,0 and reinstated the 4oint De&ision of the =a(or )r(iter 4 whi&h ruled that respondents were ille all" dis'issed and entitled to their 'one" &lai's. 2he fa&ts, &ulled fro' the re&ords, are as follows9 5 Petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant is a sin le proprietor (usiness re istered in the na'e of petitioner Pa&ita O. Po,1 whose 'other, petitioner 4osefa Po =a', 'ana es the esta(lish'ent. / 2he hotel and restaurant e'plo"ed a(out si6teen *$1+ e'plo"ees. Re&ords show that on various dates startin in $%.$, petitioner hotel and restaurant hired the followin people, all respondents in this &ase, with the followin 5o(s9. $. 7enefredo =overes #. Paterno =larena 0. -re orio Ni&erio 4. )'ado !a&ando 5. =uis -uades 1. Santos BroPola /. 2eodoro =aurenaria .. Eduardo )la'ares %. =ourdes Ca'i la $3. Chona Bu'ala" $$. 4ose )tra&tivo $#. )'ado )la'ares $0. Ro er Bur&e $4. Rolando )dana $5. !i uel 2orrefran&a $1. Ed ardo 2orrefran&a )&&ountant and Offi&er,in,&har e :ront Des@ Cler@ Supervisor" 7aiter Roo'(o" ?tilit"H!aintenan&e 7or@er Roo'(o" 7aiter Roo'(o"H7aiter Cashier Cashier 2e&hni&ian Dishwasher and Git&hen Melper Coo@ 7aiter Coo@ Coo@

Due to the e6piration and non,renewal of the lease &ontra&t for the rented spa&e o&&upied (" the said hotel and restaurant at RiFal Street, the hotel operations of the (usiness were suspended on !ar&h 0$, $%%/. % 2he operation of the restaurant was &ontinued in its new lo&ation at EliFondo Street, =e aFpi Cit", while waitin for the &onstru&tion of a new !a"on Motel O Restaurant at PeParanda Street, =e aFpi Cit". $3 Onl" nine *%+ of the si6teen *$1+ e'plo"ees &ontinued wor@in in the !a"on Restaurant at its new site. $$ On various dates of )pril and !a" $%%/, the $1 e'plo"ees filed &o'plaints for underpa"'ent of wa es and other 'one" &lai's a ainst petitioners, as follows9 $# 7enefredo =overes, =uis -uades, )'ado !a&ando and 4ose )tra&tivo for ille al dis'issal, underpa"'ent of wa es, nonpa"'ent of holida" and rest da" pa"L servi&e in&entive leave pa" *SI=P+ and &lai's for separation pa" plus da'a esL Paterno =larena and -re orio Ni&erio for ille al dis'issal with &lai's for underpa"'ent of wa esL nonpa"'ent of &ost of livin allowan&e *CO=)+ and overti'e pa"L pre'iu' pa" for holida" and rest da"L SI=PL ni htshift differential pa" and separation pa" plus da'a esL !i uel 2orrefran&a, Chona Bu'ala" and =ourdes Ca'i la for underpa"'ent of wa esL nonpa"'ent of holida" and rest da" pa" and SI=PL Rolando )dana, Ro er Bur&e and )'ado )la'ares for underpa"'ent of wa esL nonpa"'ent of CO=), overti'e, holida", rest da", SI=P and ni htshift differential pa"L Eduardo )la'ares for underpa"'ent of wa es, nonpa"'ent of holida", rest da" and SI=P and ni ht shift differential pa"L Santos BroPola for ille al dis'issal, underpa"'ent of wa es, overti'e pa", rest da" pa", holida" pa", SI=P, and da'a esL$0 and 2eodoro =aurenaria for underpa"'ent of wa esL nonpa"'ent of CO=) and overti'e pa"L pre'iu' pa" for holida" and rest da", and SI=P. On 4ul" $4, #333, E6e&utive =a(or )r(iter -ela&io =. Rivera, 4r. rendered a 4oint De&ision in favor of the e'plo"ees. 2he =a(or )r(iter awarded su(stantiall" all of respondentsN 'one" &lai's, and held that respondents =overes, !a&ando and =larena were entitled to separation pa", while respondents -uades, Ni&erio and )la'ares were entitled to their retire'ent pa". 2he =a(or )r(iter also held that (ased on the eviden&e presented, 4osefa Po =a' is the ownerHproprietor of !a"on Motel O Restaurant and the proper respondent in these &ases. On appeal to the N=RC, the de&ision of the =a(or )r(iter was reversed, and all the &o'plaints were dis'issed. Respondents filed a 'otion for re&onsideration with the N=RC and when this was denied, the" filed a petition forcertiorari with the C) whi&h rendered the now assailed de&ision. )fter their 'otion for re&onsideration was denied, petitioners now &o'e to this Court, see@in the reversal of the C) de&ision on the followin rounds9 I. 2he Monora(le Court of )ppeals erred in reversin the de&ision of the National =a(or Relations Co''ission *Se&ond Division+ (" holdin that the findin s of fa&t of the N=RC were not supported (" su(stantial eviden&e despite a'ple and suffi&ient eviden&e showin that the N=RC de&ision is indeed supported (" su(stantial eviden&eL II. 2he Monora(le Court of )ppeals erred in upholdin the 5oint de&ision of the la(or ar(iter whi&h ruled that private respondents were ille all" dis'issed fro' their e'plo"'ent, despite the fa&t that the

reason wh" private respondents were out of wor@ was not due to the fault of petitioners (ut to &auses (e"ond the &ontrol of petitioners. III. 2he Monora(le Court of )ppeals erred in upholdin the award of 'onetar" (enefits (" the la(or ar(iter in his 5oint de&ision in favor of the private respondentS, in&ludin the award of da'a es to si6 *1+ of the private respondents, despite the fa&t that the private respondents have not proven (" su(stantial eviden&e their entitle'ent thereto and espe&iall" the fa&t that the" were not ille all" dis'issed (" the petitioners. I<. 2he Monora(le Court of )ppeals erred in holdin that Pa&ita On Po is the owner of the (usiness esta(lish'ent, petitioner !a"on Motel and Restaurant, thus disre ardin the &ertifi&ate of re istration of the (usiness esta(lish'ent ISS?ED (" the lo&al overn'ent, whi&h is a pu(li& do&u'ent, and the unAualified ad'issions of &o'plainants,private respondents. $4 In essen&e, the petition &alls for a review of the followin issues9 $. 7as it &orre&t for petitioner 4osefa Po =a' to (e held lia(le as the owner of petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant, and the proper respondent in this &aseQ #. 7ere respondents =overes, -uades, !a&ando , )tra&tivo, =larena and Ni&erio ille all" dis'issedQ 0. )re respondents entitled to their 'one" &lai's due to underpa"'ent of wa es, and nonpa"'ent of holida" pa", rest da" pre'iu', SI=P, CO=), overti'e pa", and ni ht shift differential pa"Q It is petitionersN &ontention that the a(ove issues have alread" (een threshed out suffi&ientl" and definitivel" (" the N=RC. 2he" therefore assail the C)Ns reversal of the N=RC de&ision, &lai'in that (ased on the rulin in Ca92/;;o @. NLRC,$5 it is non se%uitur that the C) should re,e6a'ine the fa&tual findin s of (oth the N=RC and the =a(or )r(iter, espe&iall" as in this &ase the N=RCNs findin s are alle edl" supported (" su(stantial eviden&e. 7e do not a ree. 2here is no den"in that it is within the N=RCNs &o'peten&e, as an appellate a en&" reviewin de&isions of =a(or )r(iters, to disa ree with and set aside the latterNs findin s. $1 But it stands to reason that the N=RC should state an a&&epta(le &ause therefore, otherwise it would (e a whi'si&al, &apri&ious, oppressive, illo i&al, unreasona(le e6er&ise of Auasi,5udi&ial prero ative, su(5e&t to invalidation (" the e6traordinar" writ of certiorari.$/ )nd when the fa&tual findin s of the =a(or )r(iter and the N=RC are dia'etri&all" opposed and this disparit" of findin s is &alled into Auestion, there is, ne&essaril", a re,e6a'ination of the fa&tual findin s to as&ertain whi&h opinion should (e sustained. $. )s ruled in A91#c/o# @. NLRC,$% )lthou h, it is a le al tenet that fa&tual findin s of ad'inistrative (odies are entitled to reat wei ht and respe&t, we are &onstrained to ta@e a se&ond loo@ at the fa&ts (efore us (e&ause of the diversit" in the opinions of the =a(or )r(iter and the N=RC. ) dishar'on" (etween the fa&tual findin s of the =a(or )r(iter and those of the N=RC opens the door to a review thereof (" this Court. #3 2he C), therefore, did not err in reviewin the re&ords to deter'ine whi&h opinion was supported (" su(stantial eviden&e. !oreover, it is e6pli&it in Ca92/;;o @. NLRC#$ that fa&tual findin s of ad'inistrative (odies li@e the N=RC are affir'ed o#;6 /3 2h*6 ar* 91::or2*$ ,6 91,92a#2/a; *@/$*#c* 2ha2 /9 +a#/3*92 /# 2h* $*c/9/o# a#$ o# 2h* r*cor$9. A9 92a2*$ /# Ca92/;;o 9 C)D(use of dis&retion does not ne&essaril" follow fro' a reversal (" the N=RC of a de&ision of a =a(or )r(iter. !ere varian&e in evidentiar" assess'ent (etween the N=RC and the =a(or )r(iter does not auto'ati&all" &all for a full review of the fa&ts (" this Court. 2he N=RCNs de&ision, so lon as it is not

(ereft of su(stantial support fro' the re&ords, deserves respe&t fro' this Court. )s a rule, the ori inal and e6&lusive 5urisdi&tion to review a de&ision or resolution of respondent N=RC in a petition for certiorari under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court does not in&lude a &orre&tion of its evaluation of the eviden&e (ut is &onfined to issues of 5urisdi&tion or rave a(use of dis&retion. 2hus, the N=RCNs fa&tual findin s, if supported (" su(stantial eviden&e, are entitled to reat respe&t and even finalit", unless petitioner is a(le to show that it si'pl" and ar(itraril" disre arded the eviden&e (efore it or had 'isappre&iated the eviden&e to su&h an e6tent as to &o'pel a &ontrar" &on&lusion if su&h eviden&e had (een properl" appre&iated. *&itations o'itted+## )fter &areful review, we find that the reversal of the N=RCNs de&ision was in order pre&isel" (e&ause it was not supported (" su(stantial eviden&e. 1. O5#*r9h/: ,6 "o9*3a Po La+ 2he =a(or )r(iter ruled that as re ards the &lai's of the e'plo"ees, petitioner 4osefa Po =a' is, in fa&t, the owner of !a"on Motel O Restaurant. )lthou h the N=RC reversed this de&ision, the C), on review, a reed with the =a(or )r(iter that notwithstandin the &ertifi&ate of re istration in the na'e of Pa&ita Po, it is 4osefa Po =a' who is the ownerHproprietor of !a"on Motel O Restaurant, and the proper respondent in the &o'plaints filed (" the e'plo"ees. 2he C) de&ision states in part9 CDespiteD the e6isten&e of the Certifi&ate of Re istration in the na'e of Pa&ita Po, we &annot fault the la(or ar(iter in rulin that 4osefa Po =a' is the owner of the su(5e&t hotel and restaurant. 2here were &onfli&tin do&u'ents su('itted (" 4osefa herself. She was ordered to su('it additional do&u'ents to &learl" esta(lish ownership of the hotel and restaurant, &onsiderin the testi'onies iven (" the CrespondentsD and the non,appearan&e and failure to su('it her own position paper (" Pa&ita Po. But 4osefa did not &o'pl" with the dire&tive of the =a(or )r(iter. 2he rulin of the Supre'e Court in !etropolitan Ban@ and 2rust Co'pan" v. Court of )ppeals applies to 4osefa Po =a' whi&h is stated in this wise9 7hen the eviden&e tends to prove a 'aterial fa&t whi&h i'poses a lia(ilit" on a part", and he has it in his power to produ&e eviden&e whi&h fro' its ver" nature 'ust overthrow the &ase 'ade a ainst hi' if it is not founded on fa&t, and he refuses to produ&e su&h eviden&e, the presu'ption arises that the eviden&eC,D if produ&ed, would operate to his pre5udi&e, and support the &ase of his adversar". :urther'ore, in rulin that 4osefa Po =a' is the real owner of the hotel and restaurant, the la(or ar(iter relied also on the testi'onies of the witnesses, durin the hearin of the instant &ase. 7hen the &on&lusions of the la(or ar(iter are suffi&ientl" &orro(orated (" eviden&e on re&ord, the sa'e should (e respe&ted (" appellate tri(unals, sin&e he is in a (etter position to assess and evaluate the &redi(ilit" of the &ontendin parties.#0 *&itations o'itted+ Petitioners insist that it was error for the =a(or )r(iter and the C) to have ruled that petitioner 4osefa Po =a' is the owner of !a"on Motel O Restaurant. 2he" alle e that the do&u'ents the" su('itted to the =a(or )r(iter suffi&ientl" and &learl" esta(lish the fa&t of ownership (" petitioner Pa&ita Po, and not her 'other, petitioner 4osefa Po =a'. 2he" &ontend that petitioner 4osefa Po =a'Ns parti&ipation was li'ited to 'erel" *a+ (ein the overseerL *(+ re&eivin the 'onth,to,'onth andHor "ear,to,"ear finan&ial reports prepared and su('itted (" respondent =overesL and *&+ visitation of the pre'ises.#4 2he" also put e'phasis on the ad'ission of the respondents in their position paper su('itted to the =a(or )r(iter, identif"in petitioner 4osefa Po =a' as the 'ana er, and Pa&ita Po as the owner.#5 2his, the" &lai', is a 5udi&ial ad'ission and is (indin on respondents. 2he" protest the relian&e the =a(or )r(iter and the C) pla&ed on their failure to su('it additional do&u'ents to &learl" esta(lish ownership of the hotel and restaurant, &lai'in that there was no need for petitioner 4osefa Po =a' to su('it additional do&u'ents &onsiderin that the Certifi&ate of Re istration is the (est and pri'ar" eviden&e of ownership. 7e disa ree with petitioners. 7e have s&rutiniFed the re&ords and find the &lai' that petitioner 4osefa Po =a' is 'erel" the overseer is not (orne out (" the eviden&e.

F/r92. It is si nifi&ant that onl" 4osefa Po =a' appeared in the pro&eedin s with the =a(or )r(iter. Despite re&eipt of the =a(or )r(iterNs noti&e and su''ons, other noti&es and Orders, petitioner Pa&ita Po failed to appear in an" of the pro&eedin s with the =a(or )r(iter in these &ases, nor file her position paper. #1 It was onl" on appeal with the N=RC that Pa&ita Po si ned the pleadin s. #/ 2he apath" shown (" petitioner Pa&ita Po is &ontrar" to hu'an e6perien&e as one would thin@ that the owner of an esta(lish'ent would naturall" (e &on&erned when all her e'plo"ees file &o'plaints a ainst her. S*co#$. 2he re&ords of the &ase (elie petitioner 4osefa Po =a'Ns &lai' that she is 'erel" an overseer. 2he findin s of the =a(or )r(iter on this Auestion were (ased on &redi(le, &o'petent and su(stantial eviden&e. 7e a ain Auote the 4oint De&ision on this 'atter9 !a"on Motel and Restaurant is a C(usiness na'eD of an enterprise. 7hile CpetitionerD 4osefa Po =a' &lai's that it is her dau hter, Pa&ita Po, who owns the hotel and restaurant when the latter pur&hased the sa'e fro' one Palanos in $%.$, 4osefa failed to su('it the do&u'ent of sale fro' said Palanos to Pa&ita as alle edl" the sale was onl" ver(al althou h the li&ense to operate said hotel and restaurant is in the na'e of Pa&ita whi&h, despite our Order to 4osefa to present the sa'e, she failed to &o'pl" *p. 0., tsn. )u ust $0, $%%.+. 7hile several do&u'entar" eviden&es were su('itted (" 4osefa wherein Pa&ita was na'ed therein as owner of the hotel and restaurant *pp. 14, 15, 1/ to 1%L vol. I, rollo+C,D there were do&u'entar" eviden&es also that were su('itted (" 4osefa showin her ownership of said enterprise *pp. 41. to 41%L vol. II, rollo+. 7hile 4osefa e6plained her parti&ipation and interest in the (usiness as 'erel" to help and assist her dau hter as the hotel and restaurant was near the for'erNs store, the testi'onies of CrespondentsD and 4osefa as well as her de'eanor durin the trial in these &ases proves *si&+ that 4osefa Po =a' owns !a"on Motel and Restaurant. CRespondentsD testified that it was 4osefa who e6er&ises all the a&ts and 'anifestation of ownership of the hotel and restaurant li@e transferrin e'plo"ees fro' the -reatwall Pala&e Restaurant whi&h she and her hus(and Ro" Po =a' previousl" ownedL it is 4osefa to who' the e'plo"ees su('its *si&+ reports, draws 'one" for pa"'ent of pa"a(les and for 'ar@etin , attendin *si&+ to =a(or Inspe&tors durin o&ular inspe&tions. E6&ept for do&u'ents where(" Pa&ita Po appears as the owner of !a"on Motel and Restaurant, nothin in the re&ord shows an" &ir&u'stan&e or 'anifestation that Pa&ita Po is the owner of !a"on Motel and Restaurant. 2he least that &an (e said is that it is a(surd for a person to pur&hase a hotel and restaurant in the ver" heart of the Cit" of =e aFpi ver(all". )ssu'in this to (e true, when CpetitionersD, parti&ularl" 4osefa, was dire&ted to su('it eviden&e as to the ownership of Pa&ita of the hotel and restaurant, &onsiderin the testi'onies of CrespondentsD, the for'er should ChaveD su('itted the lease &ontra&t (etween the owner of the (uildin where !a"on Motel and Restaurant was lo&ated at RiFal St., =e aFpi Cit" and Pa&ita Po to &learl" esta(lish ownership (" the latter of said enterprise. 4osefa failed. 7e are not surprised wh" so'e e'plo"ers e'plo" s&he'es to 'islead ?s in order to evade lia(ilities. 7e therefore &onsider and hold 4osefa Po =a' as the ownerHproprietor of !a"on Motel and Restaurant and the proper respondent in these &ases. #. PetitionersN relian&e on the rules of eviden&e, i.e., the &ertifi&ate of re istration (ein the (est proof of ownership, is 'ispla&ed. Notwithstandin the &ertifi&ate of re istration, dou(ts were &ast as to the true nature of petitioner 4osefa Po =a'Ns involve'ent in the enterprise, and the =a(or )r(iter had the authorit" to resolve this issue. It was therefore within his 5urisdi&tion to reAuire the additional do&u'ents to as&ertain who was the real owner of petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant. )rti&le ##$ of the =a(or Code is &lear9 te&hni&al rules are not (indin , and the appli&ation of te&hni&al rules of pro&edure 'a" (e rela6ed in la(or &ases to serve the de'and of su(stantial 5usti&e. #% 2he rule of eviden&e prevailin in &ourt of law or eAuit" shall not (e &ontrollin in la(or &ases and it is the spirit and intention of the =a(or Code that the =a(or )r(iter shall use ever" and all reasona(le 'eans to as&ertain the fa&ts in ea&h &ase speedil" and o(5e&tivel" and without re ard to te&hni&alities of law or pro&edure, all in the interest of due pro&ess.03 =a(or laws 'andate the speed" ad'inistration of 5usti&e, with least attention to te&hni&alities (ut without sa&rifi&in the funda'ental reAuisites of due pro&ess. 0$ Si'ilarl", the fa&t that the respondentsN &o'plaints &ontained no alle ation that petitioner 4osefa Po =a' is the owner is of no 'o'ent. 2o appl" the &on&ept of 5udi&ial ad'issions to respondents R who are (ut lowl" e'plo"ees , would (e to e6a&t &o'plian&e with te&hni&alities of law that is &ontrar" to the de'ands of su(stantial 5usti&e. !oreover, the issue of ownership was an issue that arose onl" durin the &ourse of the

pro&eedin s with the =a(or )r(iter, as an in&ident of deter'inin respondentsN &lai's, and was well within his 5urisdi&tion.0# Petitioners were also not denied due pro&ess, as the" were iven suffi&ient opportunit" to (e heard on the issue of ownership.00 2he essen&e of due pro&ess in ad'inistrative pro&eedin s is si'pl" an opportunit" to e6plain oneNs side or an opportunit" to see@ re&onsideration of the a&tion or rulin &o'plained of. 04 )nd there is nothin in the re&ords whi&h would su est that petitioners had a(solute la&@ of opportunit" to (e heard.05 O(viousl", the &hoi&e not to present eviden&e was 'ade (" petitioners the'selves. 01 But 'ore si nifi&antl", we sustain the =a(or )r(iter and the C) (e&ause even when the &ase was on appeal with the N=RC, nothin was su('itted to ne ate the =a(or )r(iterNs findin that Pa&ita Po is not the real owner of the su(5e&t hotel and restaurant. Indeed, no su&h eviden&e was su('itted in the pro&eedin s with the C) nor with this Court. Considerin that petitioners vehe'entl" den" ownership (" petitioner 4osefa Po =a', it is 'ost tellin that the" &ontinue to withhold eviden&e whi&h would shed 'ore li ht on this issue. 7e therefore a ree with the C) that the failure to su('it &ould onl" 'ean that if produ&ed, it would have (een adverse to petitionersN &ase.0/ 2hus, we find that there is su(stantial eviden&e to rule that petitioner 4osefa Po =a' is the owner of petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant. 2. I;;*Aa; !/9+/99a;& c;a/+ 3or 9*:ara2/o# :a6 Of the si6teen e'plo"ees, onl" the followin filed a &ase for ille al dis'issal9 respondents =overes, =larena, Ni&erio, !a&ando , -uades, )tra&tivo and BroPola.0. 2he =a(or )r(iter found that there was ille al dis'issal, and ranted separation pa" to respondents =overes, !a&ando and =larena. )s respondents -uades, Ni&erio and )la'ares were alread" /%, 11 and 15 "ears old respe&tivel" at the ti'e of the dis'issal, the =a(or )r(iter ranted retire'ent (enefits pursuant to )rti&le #./ of the =a(or Code as a'ended.0% 2he =a(or )r(iter ruled that respondent )tra&tivo was not entitled to separation pa" (e&ause he had (een transferred to wor@ in the restaurant operations in EliFondo Street, (ut awarded hi' da'a es. Respondents =overes, =larena, Ni&erio, !a&ando and -uades were also awarded da'a es. 43 2he N=RC reversed the =a(or )r(iter, findin that >no &lear a&t of ter'ination is attendant in the &ase at (ar> and that respondents >did not su('it an" eviden&e to that effe&t, (ut the findin and &on&lusion of the =a(or )r(iter CareD 'erel" (ased on his own sur'ises and &on5e&tures.> 4$ In turn, the N=RC was reversed (" the C). It is petitioners &ontention that the C) should have sustained the N=RC findin that none of the a(ove,na'ed respondents were ille all" dis'issed, or entitled to separation or retire'ent pa". )&&ordin to petitioners, even the =a(or )r(iter and the C) ad'it that when the ille al dis'issal &ase was filed (" respondents on )pril $%%/, the" had as "et no &ause of a&tion. Petitioners therefore &on&lude that the filin (" respondents of the ille al dis'issal &ase was pre'ature and should have (een dis'issed outri ht (" the =a(or )r(iter. 4# Petitioners also &lai' that sin&e the validit" of respondentsN dis'issal is a fa&tual Auestion, it is not for the reviewin &ourt to wei h the &onfli&tin eviden&e.40 7e do not a ree. 7hether respondents ar* 92/;; 5orB/#A for petitioners /9 a fa&tual Auestion. )nd the re&ords are uneAuivo&al that sin&e )pril $%%/, when petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant suspended its hotel operations and transferred its restaurant operations in EliFondo Street, respondents =overes, !a&ando , =larena, -uades and Ni&erio have not (een per'itted to wor@ for petitioners. Respondent )la'ares, on the other hand, was also laid,off when the EliFondo Street operations &losed, as were all the other respondents. Sin&e then, respondents have not (een per'itted to wor@ nor re&alled, even after the &onstru&tion of the new pre'ises at PeParanda Street and the reopenin of the hotel operations with the restaurant in this new site. )s stated (" the 4oint De&ision of the =a(or )r(iter on 4ul" #333, or 'ore than three *0+ "ears after the &o'plaint was filed944 C:Dro' the re&ords, 'ore than si6 'onths had lapsed without CpetitionerD havin resu'ed operation of the hotel. )fter 'ore than one "ear fro' the te'porar" &losure of !a"on Motel and the te'porar"

transfer to another site of !a"on Restaurant, the (uildin whi&h CpetitionerD 4osefa alle eCdD wChDere the hotel and restaurant will (e transferred has (een finall" &onstru&ted and the sa'e is operated as a hotel with (ar and restaurant nevertheless, none of CrespondentsD herein who were e'plo"ed at !a"on Motel and Restaurant whi&h was also &losed on )pril 03, $%%. wasHwere re&alled (" CpetitionerD to &ontinue their servi&es... Parentheti&all", the =a(or )r(iter did not rant separation pa" to the other respondents as the" had not filed an a'ended &o'plaint to Auestion the &essation of their e'plo"'ent after the &losure of !a"on Motel O Restaurant on !ar&h 0$, $%%/.45 2he a(ove fa&tual findin of the =a(or )r(iter was never refuted (" petitioners in their appeal with the N=RC. It &onfounds us, therefore, how the N=RC &ould have so &avalierl" treated this un&ontroverted fa&tual findin (" rulin that respondents have not introdu&ed an" eviden&e to show that the" were ille all" dis'issed, and that the =a(or )r(iterNs findin was (ased on &on5e&ture. 41 It was a serious error that the N=RC did not inAuire as to the;*Aa;/26 of the &essation of e'plo"'ent. )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code is &lear R there is ter'ination of e'plo"'ent when an otherwise bona fide suspension of wor@ e6&eeds si6 *1+ 'onths. 4/ 2he &essation of e'plo"'ent for 'ore than si6 'onths was patent and the e'plo"er has the (urden of provin that the ter'ination was for a 5ust or authoriFed &ause. 4. !oreover, we are not i'pressed (" an" of petitionersN atte'pts to e6&ulpate the'selves fro' the &har es. :irst, in the pro&eedin s with the =a(or )r(iter, the" &lai'ed that it &ould not (e ille al dis'issal (e&ause the la",off was 'erel" te'porar" *and due to the e6piration of the lease &ontra&t over the old pre'ises of the hotel+. 2he"9:*c/3/ca;;6 invo@ed )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code to ar ue that the &lai' for separation pa" was pre'ature and without le al and fa&tual (asis. 4% 2hen, (e&ause the =a(or )r(iter had ruled that there was alread" ille al dis'issal when the la",off had e6&eeded the si6,'onth period provided for in )rti&le #.1, petitioners raise this novel ar u'ent, to wit9 It is the fir' (ut respe&tful su('ission of petitioners that relian&e on )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code is 'ispla&ed, &onsiderin that the reason wh" private respondents were out of wor@ was not due to the fault of petitioners. 2he failure of petitioners to reinstate the private respondents to their for'er positions should not li@ewise (e attri(uta(le to said petitioners as the private respondents did not su('it an" eviden&e to prove their alle ed ille al dis'issal. 2he petitioners &annot dis&ern wh" the" should (e 'ade lia(le to the private respondents for their failure to (e reinstated &onsiderin that the fa&t that the" were out of wor@ was not due to the fault of petitioners (ut due to &ir&u'stan&es (e"ond the &ontrol of petitioners, whi&h are the ter'ination and non,renewal of the lease &ontra&t over the su(5e&t pre'ises. Private respondents, however, ar ue in their Co''ent that petitioners the'selves sou ht the appli&ation of )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code in their &ase in their Position Paper filed (efore the =a(or )r(iter. In refutation, petitioners hu'(l" su('it that even if the" invo@e )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code, still the fa&t re'ains, and this (ears stress and e'phasis, that the te'porar" suspension of the operations of the esta(lish'ent arisin fro' the non,renewal of the lease &ontra&t did not result in the ter'ination of e'plo"'ent of private respondents and, therefore, the petitioners &annot (e faulted if said private respondents were out of wor@, and &onseAuentl", the" are not entitled to their 'one" &lai's a ainst the petitioners.53 It is &onfoundin how petitioners have fashioned their ar u'ents. )fter havin ad'itted, in effe&t, that respondents have (een laid,off sin&e )pril $%%/, the" would have this Court e6&use their refusal to reinstate respondents or rant the' separation pa" (e&ause these sa'e respondents purportedl" have not proven the ille alit" of their dis'issal. PetitionersN ar u'ents refle&t their la&@ of &andor and the (latant atte'pt to use te&hni&alities to 'uddle the issues and defeat the lawful &lai's of their e'plo"ees. F/r92, petitioners ad'it that 9/#c* A:r/; 1997, when hotel operations were suspended due to the ter'ination of the lease of the old pre'ises, respondents =overes, !a&ando , =larena, Ni&erio and -uades ha@* #o2 ,**# :*r+/22*$ 2o 5orB. Se&ond, *@*# a32*r 9/C +o#2h9of what should have (een 5ust a te'porar" la",off, the sa'e respondents were 92/;; #o2 r*ca;;*$ 2o 5orB. )s a 'atter of fa&t, the =a(or )r(iter even found that as of the ti'e when he rendered his 4oint De&ision on 4ul" #333 R or 'ore than three *0+ "ears after the supposed >te'porar" la",off,> 2h* *+:;o6+*#2 o3 a;; o3 2h* r*9:o#$*#29 5/2h :*2/2/o#*r9 ha$ c*a9*$, notwithstandin that the new pre'ises had (een &o'pleted and

the sa'e operated as a hotel with (ar and restaurant. 2his is &learl" $/9+/99a; R or the per'anent severan&e or &o'plete separation of the wor@er fro' the servi&e on the initiative of the e'plo"er re ardless of the reasons therefor.5$ On this point, we note that the =a(or )r(iter and the C) are in a&&ord that at the ti'e of the filin of the &o'plaint, respondents had no &ause of a&tion to file the &ase for ille al dis'issal. )&&ordin to the C) and the =a(or )r(iter, the la",off of the respondents was 'erel" te'porar", pendin &onstru&tion of the new (uildin at PeParanda Street.5# 7hile the c;o91r* of the hotel operations in )pril of $%%/ 'a" have (een te'porar", we hold that the eviden&e on re&ord (elie an" &lai' of petitioners that the ;a6-o33 of respondents on that sa'e date was 'erel" te'porar". On the &ontrar", we find su(stantial eviden&e that petitioners intended the ter'ination to (e per'anent. F/r92, respondents =overes, !a&ando , =larena, -uades, Ni&erio and )la'ares filed the &o'plaint for ille al dis'issal/++*$/a2*;6 a32*r the &losure of the hotel operations in RiFal Street, notwithstandin the alle ed te'porar" nature of the &losure of the hotel operations, and petitionersN alle ations that the e'plo"ees assi ned to the hotel operations @new a(out this (eforehand. S*co#$, in their position paper su('itted to the =a(or )r(iter, petitioners invo@ed )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code to assert that the e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship was 'erel" suspended, and therefore the &lai' for separation pa" was pre'ature and without le al or fa&tual (asis.50 %12 2h*6 +a$* #o +*#2/o# o3 a#6 /#2*#2 2o r*ca;; 2h*9* r*9:o#$*#29 2o 5orB 1:o# co+:;*2/o# o3 2h* #*5 :r*+/9*9. Th/r$,the various pleadin s on re&ord show that petitioners held respondents, parti&ularl" =overes, as responsi(le for 'is'ana e'ent of the esta(lish'ent and for a(use of trust and &onfiden&e. Petitioner 4osefa Po =a'Ns affidavit on 4ul" #$, $%%., for e6a'ple, sAuarel" (la'ed respondents, spe&ifi&all" =overes, Bu'ala" and Ca'i la, for a(usin her lenien&" and &ausin petitioner !a"on Motel O Restaurant to sustain >&ontinuous losses until it is &losed.> She then asserts that respondents >are not entitled to separation pa" for the" were not ter'inated and if ever the (usiness &eased to operate it was (e&ause of losses.>54 ) ain, petitioners 'a@e the sa'e alle ation in their 'e'orandu' on appeal with the N=RC, where the" alle ed that three *0+ "ears prior to the e6piration of the lease in $%%/, the operation of the Motel had (een sustainin &onsistent losses, and these were solel" attri(uted to respondents, (ut 'ost espe&iall" due to =overesNs 'is'ana e'ent and a(use of petitionersN trust and &onfiden&e. 55 Even the petition filed in this &ourt 'ade referen&e to the separation of the respondents due to >severe finan&ial losses and reverses,> a ain i'putin it to respondentsN 'is'ana e'ent. 51 2he vehe'en&e of petitionersN a&&usation of 'is'ana e'ent a ainst respondents, espe&iall" a ainst =overes, is in&onsistent with the desire to re&all the' to wor@. Fo1r2h, petitionersN 'e'orandu' on appeal also averred that the &ase was filed >not (e&ause of the (usiness (ein operated (" the' or that the" were supposedl" not re&eivin (enefits fro' the =a(or Code whi&h is true, (ut (e&ause of the fa&t that 2h* 9o1rc* o3 2h*/r ;/@*;/hoo$, 5h*2h*r ;*Aa; or /++ora;, 5a9 92o::*$ o# March 31, 1997, when the owner of the (uildin ter'inated the =ease Contra&t.> 5/:ifth, petitioners had in&onsisten&ies in their pleadin s *with the N=RC, C) and with this Court+ in referrin to the &losure, 5. i.e., in the petition filed with this &ourt, the" assert that there is no ille al dis'issal (e&ause there was >onl" a te'porar" &essation or suspension of operations of the hotel and restaurant due to &ir&u'stan&es (e"ond the &ontrol of petitioners, and that is, the non,renewal of the lease &ontra&t...> 5% )nd "et, in the sa'e petition, the" also assert that9 *a+ the separation of respondents was due to severe finan&ial losses and reverses leadin 2o 2h* c;o91r* o3 2h* ,19/#*99L and *(+ :*2/2/o#*r Pa&ita Po ha$ 2o c;o9* 9ho: and was (an@rupt and has no liAuidit" to put up her own (uildin to house !a"on Motel O Restaurant. 13 S/C2h, and finall", the un&ontroverted findin of the =a(or )r(iter that petitioners ter'inated all the other respondents, (" not e'plo"in the' when the Motel and Restaurant transferred to its new site on PeParanda Street. 1$ Indeed, in this sa'e 'e'orandu', petitioners referred to all respondents as >for'er e'plo"ees of !a"on Motel O Restaurant.> 1# 2hese fa&tors 'a" (e in&on&lusive individuall", (ut when ta@en to ether, the" lead us to &on&lude that petitioners reall" intended to dis'iss all respondents and 'erel" used the ter'ination of the lease *on RiFal Street pre'ises+ as a 'eans (" whi&h the" &ould ter'inate their e'plo"ees. !oreover, even assu'in arguendo that the &essation of e'plo"'ent on )pril $%%/ was 'erel" te'porar", it,*ca+* dis'issal (" operation of law when petitioners failed to reinstate respondents after the lapse of si6 *1+ 'onths, pursuant to )rti&le #.1 of the =a(or Code. 7e are not i'pressed (" petitionersN &lai' that severe (usiness losses 5ustified their failure to reinstate respondents. 2he eviden&e to prove this fa&t is in&on&lusive. But 'ore i'portant, serious (usiness losses do not e6&use the e'plo"er fro' &o'pl"in with the &learan&e or report reAuired under )rti&le #.0 of the =a(or

Code and its i'ple'entin rules (efore ter'inatin the e'plo"'ent of its wor@ers. 10 In the a(sen&e of 5ustif"in &ir&u'stan&es, the failure of petitioners to o(serve the pro&edural reAuire'ents set out under )rti&le #.4, taints their a&tuations with (ad faith, espe&iall" sin&e the" &lai'ed that the" have (een e6perien&in losses in the three "ears (efore $%%/. 2o sa" the least, if it were true that the la",off was te'porar" (ut then serious (usiness losses prevented the reinstate'ent of respondents, then petitioners should have &o'plied with the reAuire'ents of written noti&e. 2he reAuire'ent of law 'andatin the ivin of noti&es was intended not onl" to ena(le the e'plo"ees to loo@ for another e'plo"'ent and therefore ease the i'pa&t of the loss of their 5o(s and the &orrespondin in&o'e, (ut 'ore i'portantl", to ive the Depart'ent of =a(or and E'plo"'ent *DO=E+ the opportunit" to as&ertain the verit" of the alle ed authoriFed &ause of ter'ination. 14 )nd even assu'in that the &losure was due to a reason (e"ond the &ontrol of the e'plo"er, it still has to a&&ord its e'plo"ees so'e relief in the for' of severan&e pa". 15 7hile we re&o niFe the ri ht of the e'plo"er to ter'inate the servi&es of an e'plo"ee for a 5ust or authoriFed &ause, the dis'issal of e'plo"ees 'ust (e 'ade within the para'eters of law and pursuant to the tenets of fair pla".11 )nd in ter'ination disputes, the (urden of proof is alwa"s on the e'plo"er to prove that the dis'issal was for a 5ust or authoriFed &ause.1/ 7here there is no showin of a &lear, valid and le al &ause for ter'ination of e'plo"'ent, the law &onsiders the &ase a 'atter of ille al dis'issal. 1. ?nder these &ir&u'stan&es, the award of da'a es was proper. )s a rule, 'oral da'a es are re&overa(le where the dis'issal of the e'plo"ee was attended (" (ad faith or fraud or &onstituted an a&t oppressive to la(or, or was done in a 'anner &ontrar" to 'orals, ood &usto's or pu(li& poli&". 1% 7e (elieve that the dis'issal of the respondents was attended with (ad faith and 'eant to evade the lawful o(li ations i'posed upon an e'plo"er. 2o rule otherwise would lead to the ano'al" of respondents (ein ter'inated fro' e'plo"'ent in $%%/ as a 'atter of fa&t, (ut without le al redress. 2his runs &ounter to notions of fair pla", su(stantial 5usti&e and the &onstitutional 'andate that la(or ri hts should (e respe&ted. If dou(ts e6ist (etween the eviden&e presented (" the e'plo"er and the e'plo"ee, the s&ales of 5usti&e 'ust (e tilted in favor of the latter R the e'plo"er 'ust affir'ativel" show rationall" adeAuate eviden&e that the dis'issal was for a 5ustifia(le &ause. /3 It is a ti'e, honored rule that in &ontroversies (etween a la(orer and his 'aster, dou(ts reasona(l" arisin fro' the eviden&e, or in the interpretation of a ree'ents and writin should (e resolved in the for'erNs favor. /$ 2he poli&" is to e6tend the do&trine to a reater nu'(er of e'plo"ees who &an avail of the (enefits under the law, whi&h is in &onsonan&e with the avowed poli&" of the State to ive 'a6i'u' aid and prote&tion of la(or. /# 7e therefore reinstate the =a(or )r(iterNs de&ision with the followin 'odifi&ations9 *a+ Separation pa" for the ille al dis'issal of respondents =overes, !a&ando and =larenaL *Santos BroPola &annot (e ranted separation pa" as he 'ade no su&h &lai'+L *(+ Retire'ent pa" for respondents -uades, Ni&erio, and )la'ares, who at the ti'e of dis'issal were entitled to their retire'ent (enefits pursuant to )rti&le #./ of the =a(or Code as a'endedL /0 and *&+ Da'a es for respondents =overes, !a&ando , =larena, -uades, Ni&erio, )tra&tivo, and BroPola. 3. Mo#*6 c;a/+9 2he C) held that &ontrar" to the N=RCNs rulin , petitioners had not dis&har ed the (urden of provin that the 'onetar" &lai's of the respondents have (een paid./4 2he C) thus reinstated the =a(or )r(iterNs rant of respondentsN 'onetar" &lai's, in&ludin da'a es. Petitioners assail this rulin (" repeatin their lon and &onvoluted ar u'ent that as there was no ille al dis'issal, then respondents are not entitled to their 'onetar" &lai's or separation pa" and da'a es. PetitionersN ar u'ents are not onl" tirin , repetitive and un&onvin&in , (ut &onfusin and &onfused R entitle'ent to la(or standard (enefits is a separate and distin&t &on&ept fro' pa"'ent of separation pa" arisin fro' ille al dis'issal, and are overned (" different provisions of the =a(or Code.

7e a ree with the C) and the =a(or )r(iter. Respondents have set out with parti&ularit" in their &o'plaint, position paper, affidavits and other do&u'ents the la(or standard (enefits the" are entitled to, and whi&h the" alle ed that petitioners have failed to pa" the'. It was therefore petitionersN (urden to prove that the" have paid these 'one" &lai's. One who pleads pa"'ent has the (urden of provin it, and even where the e'plo"ees 'ust alle e nonpa"'ent, the eneral rule is that the (urden rests on the defendant to prove nonpa"'ent, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non pa"'ent. /5 2his petitioners failed to do. 7e also a ree with the =a(or )r(iter and the C) that the do&u'ents petitioners su('itted, i.e., affidavits e6e&uted (" so'e of respondents durin an o&ular inspe&tion &ondu&ted (" an inspe&tor of the DO=EL noti&es of inspe&tion result and :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders issued (" DO=E, are not suffi&ient to prove pa"'ent./1 Despite repeated orders fro' the =a(or )r(iter,// petitioners failed to su('it the pertinent e'plo"ee files, pa"rolls, re&ords, re'ittan&es and other si'ilar do&u'ents whi&h would show that respondents rendered wor@ entitlin the' to pa"'ent for overti'e wor@, ni ht shift differential, pre'iu' pa" for wor@ on holida"s and rest da", and pa"'ent of these as well as the CO=) and the SI=P J do&u'ents whi&h are not in respondentsN possession (ut in the &ustod" and a(solute &ontrol of petitioners. /. B" &hoosin not to full" and &o'pletel" dis&lose infor'ation and present the ne&essar" do&u'ents to prove pa"'ent of la(or standard (enefits due to respondents, petitioners failed to dis&har e the (urden of proof. /% Indeed, petitionersN failure to su('it the ne&essar" do&u'ents whi&h as e'plo"ers are in their possession, inspite of orders to do so, ives rise to the presu'ption that their presentation is pre5udi&ial to its &ause..3 )s aptl" Auoted (" the C)9 C7Dhen the eviden&e tends to prove a 'aterial fa&t whi&h i'poses a lia(ilit" on a part", and he has it in his power to produ&e eviden&e whi&h fro' its ver" nature 'ust overthrow the &ase 'ade a ainst hi' if it is not founded on fa&t, and he refuses to produ&e su&h eviden&e, the presu'ption arises that the eviden&e, if produ&ed, would operate to his pre5udi&e, and support the &ase of his adversar". .$ Petitioners ne6t &lai' that the &ost of the food and sna&@s provided to respondents as fa&ilities should have (een in&luded in re&@onin the pa"'ent of respondentsN wa es. 2he" state that althou h on the surfa&e respondents appeared to re&eive 'ini'al wa es, petitioners had ranted respondents other (enefits whi&h are &onsidered part and par&el of their wa es and are allowed under e6istin laws. .# 2he" &lai' that these (enefits 'a@e up for whatever inadeAua&ies there 'a" (e in &o'pensation. .0 Spe&ifi&all", the" invo@ed Se&tions 5 and 1, Rule <II,), whi&h allow the dedu&tion of fa&ilities provided (" the e'plo"er throu h an appropriate :a&ilit" Evaluation Order issued (" the Re ional Dire&tor of the DO=E..4 Petitioners also aver that the" ive five *5+ per&ent of the ross in&o'e ea&h 'onth as in&entives. )s proof of &o'plian&e of pa"'ent of 'ini'u' wa es, petitioners su('itted the Noti&e of Inspe&tion Results issued in $%%5 and $%%/ (" the DO=E Re ional Offi&e. .5 2he &ost of 'eals and sna&@s purportedl" provided to respondents &annot (e dedu&ted as part of respondentsN 'ini'u' wa e. )s stated in the =a(or )r(iterNs de&ision9.1 7hile CpetitionersD su('itted :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders *pp. 41., 41%L vol. II, rollo+ issued (" the DO=E Re ional Offi&e where(" the &ost of 'eals iven (" CpetitionersD to CrespondentsD were spe&ified for purposes of &onsiderin the sa'e as part of their wa es, 7e &annot &onsider the &ost of 'eals in the Orders as appli&a(le to CrespondentsD. CRespondentsD were not interviewed (" the DO=E as to the Aualit" and Auantit" of food appearin in the appli&ations of CpetitionersD for fa&ilit" evaluation prior to its approval to deter'ine whether or not CrespondentsD were indeed iven su&h @ind and Auantit" of food. )lso, there was no eviden&e that the Aualit" and Auantit" of food in the Orders were voluntaril" a&&epted (" CrespondentsD. On the &ontrar"L while so'e Cof the respondentsD ad'itted that the" were iven 'eals and 'erienda, the Aualit" of food serveCdD to the' were not what were provided for in the Orders and that it was onl" when the" filed these &ases that the" &a'e to @now a(out said :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders *pp. $33L 0/%C,D vol. II, rolloL p. 43, tsnC,D 4une $%, $%%.+. CPetitionerD 4osefa herself, who applied for evaluation of the fa&ilit" *food+ iven to CrespondentsD, testified that she did not infor' CrespondentsD &on&ernin said :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders *p. 04, tsnC,D )u ust $0, $%%.+. Even rantin that 'eals and sna&@s were provided and indeed &onstituted fa&ilities, su&h fa&ilities &ould not (e dedu&ted without &o'plian&e with &ertain le al reAuire'ents. )s stated in Ma,*0a @. NLRC,./ the e'plo"er si'pl" &annot dedu&t the value fro' the e'plo"eeNs wa es without satisf"in the followin 9 *a+ proof that su&h fa&ilities are &usto'aril" furnished (" the tradeL *(+ the provision of dedu&ti(le fa&ilities is voluntaril" a&&epted in writin (" the e'plo"eeL and *&+ the fa&ilities are &har ed at fair and reasona(le value. 2he re&ords are &lear

that petitioners failed to &o'pl" with these reAuire'ents. 2here was no proof of respondentsN written authoriFation. Indeed, the =a(or )r(iter found that while the respondents ad'itted that the" were iven 'eals and merienda, the Aualit" of food served to the' was not what was provided for in the :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders and it was onl" when the" filed the &ases that the" &a'e to @now of this supposed :a&ilit" Evaluation Orders... Petitioner 4osefa Po =a' herself a$+/22*$ that she did not infor' the respondents of the fa&ilities she had applied for..% Considerin the failure to &o'pl" with the a(ove,'entioned le al reAuire'ents, the =a(or )r(iter therefore erred when he ruled that the &ost of the 'eals a&tuall" provided to respondents should (e dedu&ted as part of their salaries, on the round that respondents have availed the'selves of the food iven (" petitioners. %3 2he law is &lear that 'ere avail'ent is not suffi&ient to allow dedu&tions fro' e'plo"eesN wa es. !ore i'portant, we note the un&ontroverted testi'on" of respondents on re&ord that the" were reAuired to eat in the hotel and restaurant so that the" will not o ho'e and there is no interruption in the servi&es of !a"on Motel O Restaurant. )s ruled in Ma,*0a, food or sna&@s or other &onvenien&e provided (" the e'plo"ers are dee'ed as supple'ents if the" are ranted for the &onvenien&e of the e'plo"er. 2he &riterion in 'a@in a distin&tion (etween a supple'ent and a fa&ilit" does not so 'u&h lie in the @ind *food, lod in + (ut the purpose.%$ Considerin , therefore, that hotel wor@ers are reAuired to wor@ different shifts and are e6pe&ted to (e availa(le at various odd hours, their read" availa(ilit" is a ne&essar" 'atter in the operations of a s'all hotel, su&h as petitionersN (usiness.%# 2he dedu&tion of the &ost of 'eals fro' respondentsN wa es, therefore, should (e re'oved. 7e also do not a ree with petitioners that the five *5+ per&ent of the ross in&o'e of the esta(lish'ent &an (e &onsidered as part of the respondentsN wa es. 7e Auote with approval the =a(or )r(iter on this 'atter, to wit9 7hile &o'plainants, who were e'plo"ed in the hotel, re&eiveCdD various a'ounts as profit share, the sa'e &annot (e &onsidered as part of their wa es in deter'inin their &lai's for violation of la(or standard (enefits. )lthou h &alled profit shareC,D su&h is in the nature of share fro' servi&e &har es &har ed (" the hotel. 2his is 'ore e6plained (" CrespondentsD when the" testified that what the" re&eived are not fi6ed a'ounts and the sa'e are paid not on a 'onthl" (asis *pp. 55, %0, %4, $30, $34L vol. II, rollo+. )lso, CpetitionersD failed to su('it eviden&e that the a'ounts re&eived (" CrespondentsD as profit share are to (e &onsidered part of their wa es and had (een a reed (" the' prior to their e'plo"'ent. :urther, how &an the a'ounts re&eiveCdD (" CrespondentsD (e &onsidered as profit share when the sa'e CareD (ased on the ross re&eipt of the hotelCQD No profit &an as "et (e deter'ined out of the ross re&eipt of an enterprise. Profits are realiFed after e6penses are dedu&ted fro' the ross in&o'e. On the issue of the proper 'ini'u' wa e appli&a(le to respondents, we sustain the =a(or )r(iter. 7e note that petitioners the'selves have ad'itted that the esta(lish'ent e'plo"s >'ore or less si6teen *$1+ e'plo"ees,>%0therefore the" are estopped fro' &lai'in that the appli&a(le 'ini'u' wa e should (e for servi&e esta(lish'ents e'plo"in $5 e'plo"ees or less. )s for petitioners repeated invo&ation of serious (usiness losses, suffi&e to sa" that this is not a defense to pa"'ent of la(or standard (enefits. 2he e'plo"er &annot e6e'pt hi'self fro' lia(ilit" to pa" 'ini'u' wa es (e&ause of poor finan&ial &ondition of the &o'pan". 2he pa"'ent of 'ini'u' wa es is not dependent on the e'plo"erNs a(ilit" to pa".%4 2hus, we reinstate the award of 'onetar" &lai's ranted (" the =a(or )r(iter. 4. Co#c;19/o# 2here is no den"in that the a&tuations of petitioners in this &ase have (een reprehensi(le. 2he" have ter'inated the respondentsN e'plo"'ent in an underhanded 'anner, and have used and a(used the Auasi, 5udi&ial and 5udi&ial pro&esses to resist pa"'ent of their e'plo"eesN ri htful &lai's, there(" protra&tin this &ase and &ausin the unne&essar" &lo in of do&@ets of the Court. 2he" have also for&ed respondents to unne&essar" hardship and finan&ial e6pense. Indeed, the &ir&u'stan&es of this &ase would have &alled for

e6e'plar" da'a es, as the dis'issal was effe&ted in a wanton, oppressive or 'alevolent 'anner, %5 and pu(li& poli&" reAuires that these a&ts 'ust (e suppressed and dis&oura ed. %1 Nevertheless, we &annot a ree with the =a(or )r(iter in rantin e6e'plar" da'a es of P$3,333.33 ea&h to all respondents. 7hile it is true that other for's of da'a es under the Civil Code 'a" (e awarded to ille all" dis'issed e'plo"ees,%/ an" award of 'oral da'a es (" the =a(or )r(iter &annot (e (ased on the =a(or Code (ut should (e rounded on the Civil Code.%. )nd the law is &lear that e6e'plar" da'a es &an onl" (e awarded if plaintiff shows proof that he is entitled to 'oral, te'perate or &o'pensator" da'a es. %% )s onl" respondents =overes, -uades, !a&ando , =larena, Ni&erio, )tra&tivo and BroPola spe&ifi&all" &lai'ed da'a es fro' petitioners, then onl" the" are entitled to e6e'plar" da'a es. s5 s$ :inall", we rule that attorne"Ns fees in the a'ount to P$3,333.33 should (e ranted to ea&h respondent. It is settled that in a&tions for re&over" of wa es or where an e'plo"ee was for&ed to liti ate and in&ur e6penses to prote&t his ri hts and interest, he is entitled to an award of attorne"Ns fees. $33 2his &ase undou(tedl" falls within this rule. IN IE' '(EREOF, the petition is here(" DENIED. 2he De&ision of 4anuar" $/, #330 of the Court of )ppeals in C),-.R. SP No. 1.14# upholdin the 4oint De&ision of 4ul" $4, #333 of the =a(or )r(iter in R)B < Case Nos. 34,333/%,%/ and 34,333.3,%/ is )::IR!ED, with the followin !ODI:IC)2IONS9 *$+ -rantin separation pa" of one,half *$H#+ 'onth for ever" "ear of servi&e to respondents =overes, !a&ando and =larenaL *#+ -rantin retire'ent pa" for respondents -uades, Ni&erio, and )la'aresL *0+ Re'ovin the dedu&tions for food fa&ilit" fro' the a'ounts due to all respondentsL *4+ )wardin 'oral da'a es of P#3,333.33 ea&h for respondents =overes, !a&ando , =larena, -uades, Ni&erio, )tra&tivo, and BroPolaL *5+ Deletin the award of e6e'plar" da'a es of P$3,333.33 fro' all respondents e6&ept =overes, !a&ando , =larena, -uades, Ni&erio, )tra&tivo, and BroPolaL and *1+ -rantin attorne"Ns fees of P$3,333.33 ea&h to all respondents. 2he &ase is RE!)NDED to the =a(or )r(iter for the RECO!P?2)2ION of the total 'onetar" (enefits awarded and due to the e'plo"ees &on&erned in a&&ordan&e with the de&ision. 2he =a(or )r(iter is ORDERED to su('it his &o'plian&e thereon within thirt" *03+ da"s fro' noti&e of this de&ision, with &opies furnished to the parties. G.R. No. 174935 A:r/; 30, 200)

CI IL SER ICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. TRISTAN C. COLANGGO,SS respondents. !ECISION CORONA, J.& 2his petition for review on &ertiorari$ see@s to set aside the :e(ruar" ##, #331 de&ision# of the Court of )ppeals *C)+ in C),-.R. SP No. /%34/ and its resolution den"in re&onsideration. 0

On O&to(er #5, $%%#, respondent 2ristan C. Colan o too@ the Professional Board E6a'ination for 2ea&hers *PBE2+ and o(tained a passin rate of /5.%.T. On O&to(er $, $%%0, he was appointed 2ea&her I and was assi ned to Don Ru(en E. E&leo, Sr. !e'orial National Mi h S&hool in San 4ose, Suri ao del Norte. Su(seAuentl", a &o'plaint Auestionin the eli i(ilit" of tea&hers in Suri ao del Norte was filed in the Civil Servi&e Co''ission *CSC+ C)R)-) Re ional Offi&e No. UIII *CSC,C)R)-)+ in Butuan Cit". 2he CSC, C)R)-) i''ediatel" investi ated the 'atter. In the &ourse of its investi ation, the CSC,C)R)-) dis&overed si nifi&ant irre ularities in respondentNs do&u'ents. 2he photo raphs of >2ristan C. Colan o> atta&hed respe&tivel" to the PBE2 appli&ation for' and to the O&to(er #5, $%%# pi&ture seat plan did not rese'(le respondent. :urther'ore, the si nature found in the PBE2 appli&ation for' was 'ar@edl" different fro' that affi6ed on respondentNs personal data sheet *PDS+. It appeared that so'eone other than respondent filed his PBE2 appli&ation and still another person too@ the e6a' on his (ehalf. 2hus, the CSC,C)R)-) filed a for'al &har e for dishonest" and &ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of servi&e a ainst respondent on 4anuar" $0, $%%%.4 On Septe'(er #/, #333, respondent filed an answer den"in the &har es a ainst hi' and 'oved for a for'al hearin and investi ation. 2he CSC ranted the 'otion and s&heduled a hearin on O&to(er 0$, #333. Respondent failed to appear on the said date (ut su(seAuentl" filed an o'ni(us 'otion for the produ&tion of ori inal do&u'ents relative to the &har es a ainst hi' and the presentation of persons who supervised the O&to(er #5, $%%# PBE2. Mis 'otion was ranted and the &on&erned pro&tor and e6a'iners were su(poenaed. )fter evaluatin the eviden&e, the CSC found9 On the (asis of the photo raphs atta&hed CtoD the PBE2 appli&ation for' and the pi&ture seat plan, it is evident that the person who filed the appli&ation for' for the PBE2 is not the sa'e person who a&tuall" too@ the said e6a'ination on O&to(er #5, $%%#. 2his disparit" of ph"si&al features of the for'er and latter are evident. 2he person who filed the PBE2 has fuller &hee@(ones and slanted e"es, thinner lips and has a different hairst"le fro' that of the 4ohn Doe who too@ the said e6a'ination. On the other hand, the latter has thinner &hee@(ones, elon ated &hin, full lips with a 'ousta&he and round e"es. )lso, the si natures appearin of the PBE2 appli&ant and that of the PBE2 e6a'inee are also in different stro@es, &urves and slants. Co'parin the si natures on the CPBE2 appli&ation for'D and Cpi&ture seat planD vis&'&vis those affi6ed on the PDS of respondent 'ore evidentl" reveals that the three are different persons. 2he photo raphs and si natures appearin on the CPBE2 appli&ation for'D and Cpi&ture seat planD are far and different fro' the fa&ial features and si natures fro' (oth 4ohn Does. Respondent loo@s older, has full &hee@(ones, flatter nose and thin lips. I# o2h*r 5or$9, 2h* :/c21r* a#$ 9/A#a21r*9 a33/C*$ o# 2h* P%ET a::;/ca2/o# 3or+, :/c21r* 9*a2 :;a# a#$ P!S 1#$o1,2*$;6 ,*;o#A 2o 2hr** $/33*r*#2 :*r9o#9 5h/ch c;*ar;6 9*r@* a Aro1#$ 2o *92a,;/9h a D192 ca19* 3or CSC-CARAGA 2o /991* a 3or+a; charA* o# "a#1ar6 13, 1999 aAa/#92 r*9:o#$*#2 .5 *e'phasis supplied+ 2he CSC &on&luded that respondent did not appl" for and ta@e the PBE2 e6a'. 2hus, in Resolution No. 3#$4$#, the CSC found respondent uilt" of dishonest" and &ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of servi&e and ordered his dis'issal. 1 Respondent 'oved for re&onsideration (ut his 'otion was denied. / ) rieved, respondent filed a petition for &ertiorari in the C) alle in that the CSC &o''itted rave a(use of dis&retion in issuin Resolution No. 3#$4$#. . Me pointed out that the pie&es of eviden&e a ainst hi' were inad'issi(le as the" were unauthenti&ated photo&opies of the PBE2 appli&ation for', pi&ture seat plan and PDS.

On :e(ruar" ##, #331, the C) ranted the petition. % It ruled that the photo&opies of the PBE2 appli&ation for', pi&ture seat plan and PDS should have (een authenti&ated. $3 Onl" do&u'ents or pu(li& re&ords dul" a&@nowled ed or &ertified as su&h in a&&ordan&e with law &ould (e presented in eviden&e without further proof.$$ConseAuentl", the C) annulled and set aside Resolution No. 3#$4$# and ordered the dis'issal of &har es a ainst respondent.$# 2he CSC 'oved for re&onsideration$0 (ut was denied.$4 Men&e, this petition. 2he CSC essentiall" avers that the C) erred in findin that it &o''itted rave a(use of dis&retion in renderin Resolution No. 3#$4$#.$5 2he ?nifor' Rules on )d'inistrative Cases in the Civil Servi&e$1 *?nifor' Rules+ does not reAuire stri&t adheren&e to te&hni&al rules of eviden&e. 2hus, it validl" &onsidered the photo&opies of the PBE2 appli&ation for', pi&ture seat plan and PDS in resolvin the for'al &har e a ainst respondent in spite of the fa&t that the" were not dul" authenti&ated. 2he petition is 'eritorious. )d'inistrative rules of pro&edure are &onstrued li(erall" to pro'ote their o(5e&tive and to assist parties in o(tainin 5ust, speed" and ine6pensive deter'ination of their respe&tive &lai's and defenses. $/ Se&tion 0% of the ?nifor' Rules provides9 Se&tion 0%. 2he dire&t eviden&e for the &o'plainant and the respondent &onsist of the sworn state'ent and do&u'ents su('itted in support of the &o'plaint or answer as the &ase 'a" (e, without pre5udi&e to the presentation of additional eviden&e dee'ed ne&essar" (ut was unavaila(le at the ti'e of the filin of the &o'plaint and the answer upon whi&h the &ross,e6a'ination, (" the respondent and the &o'plainant respe&tivel", shall (e (ased. :ollowin the &ross,e6a'ination, there 'a" (e re,dire&t or re,&ross e6a'ination. Either part" 'a" avail hi'self of the servi&es of &ounsel and 'a" reAuire the attendan&e of witnesses and the produ&tion of do&u'entar" eviden&e in his favor throu h the &o'pulsor" pro&ess of subpoena orsubpoena duces tecum. Th* /#@*92/Aa2/o# 9ha;; ,* co#$1c2*$ 3or 2h* :1r:o9* o3 a9c*r2a/#/#A 2h* 2r12h 5/2ho12 #*c*99ar/;6 a$h*r/#A 2o 2*ch#/ca; r1;*9 a::;/ca,;* /# D1$/c/a; :roc**$/#A9. It shall (e &ondu&ted (" the dis&iplinin authorit" &on&erned or his authoriFed representatives. *e'phasis supplied+ 2he provision a(ove &learl" states that the CSC, in investi atin &o'plaints a ainst &ivil servants, is not (ound (" te&hni&al rules of pro&edure and eviden&e appli&a(le in 5udi&ial pro&eedin s. 2he CSC &orre&tl" appre&iated the photo&opies of PBE2 appli&ation for', pi&ture seat plan and PDS *thou h not dul" authenti&ated+ in deter'inin whether there was suffi&ient eviden&e to su(stantiate the &har es a ainst the respondent. 7orth notin was that respondent never o(5e&ted to the vera&it" of their &ontents. Me 'erel" disputed their ad'issi(ilit" on the round that the" were not authenti&ated. )s a eneral rule, a findin of uilt in ad'inistrative &ases, if supported (" su(stantial eviden&e *or >that a'ount of eviden&e whi&h a reasona(le 'ind 'i ht a&&ept as adeAuate to 5ustif" a &on&lusion>+, $. will (e sustained (" this Court.$% 2he CSC ra&iousl" ranted respondentNs 'otions to ensure that he was a&&orded pro&edural due pro&ess. !oreover, it e6haustivel" dis&ussed the differen&es in appearan&es of respondent and the persons whose photo raphs were atta&hed to the PBE2 appli&ation for' and the pi&ture seat plan. It li@ewise &o'pared the various si natures on the said do&u'ents. Resolution No. 3#$4$# reveals that the CSC &arefull" evaluated the alle ations a ainst respondent and thorou hl" e6a'ined and wei hed the eviden&e su('itted for its &onsideration. 2he penalt" *of dis'issal+ i'posed on respondent was therefore full" in a&&ord with law #3 and 5urispruden&e.#$ 7e find no rave a(use of dis&retion on the part of the CSC.

ACCOR!INGL<, the petition is here(" GRANTE!. 2he :e(ruar" ##, #331 de&ision and )u ust $/, #331 resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C),S.P. No. /%34/ are RE ERSE! and SET ASI!E. Resolution No. 3#$4$# dated O&to(er ##, #33# and the !a" $%, #330 resolution of the Civil Servi&e Co''ission findin respondent 2ristan C. Colan o GUILT< of dishonest" and &ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of servi&e and dis'issin hi' fro' the servi&e with forfeiture of leave &redits and retire'ent (enefits and disAualif"in hi' fro' ree'plo"'ent in the overn'ent servi&e are REINSTATE!. G.R. No. 127240 March 27, 2000

ONG C(IA, petitioner, vs. REPU%LIC OF T(E P(ILIPPINES a#$ T(E COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. MEN!O.A, J.: 2his is a petition for review of the de&ision$ of the Court of )ppeals reversin the de&ision of the Re ional 2rial Court, Bran&h #4, Goronadal, South Cota(ato # ad'ittin petitioner On Chia to Philippine &itiFenship. 2he fa&ts are as follows9 Petitioner was (orn on 4anuar" $, $%#0 in )'o", China. In $%0#, as a nine,"ear old (o", he arrived at the port of !anila on (oard the vessel >)n @in .> Sin&e then, he has sta"ed in the Philippines where he found e'plo"'ent and eventuall" started his own (usiness, 'arried a :ilipina, with who' he had four &hildren. On 4ul" 4, $%.%, at the a e of 11, he filed a verified petition to (e ad'itted as a :ilipino &itiFen under C.). No. 4/0, otherwise @nown as the Revised NaturaliFation =aw, as a'ended. Petitioner, after statin his Aualifi&ations as reAuired in V#, and la&@ of the disAualifi&ations enu'erated in V0 of the law, stated R $/. 2hat he has heretofore 'ade *a+ petition for &itiFenship under the provisions of =etter of Instru&tion No. #/3 with the Spe&ial Co''ittee on NaturaliFation, Offi&e of the Soli&itor -eneral, !anila, do&@eted as SCN Case No. 30$//1, (ut the sa'e was not a&ted upon owin to the fa&t that the said Spe&ial Co''ittee on NaturaliFation was not re&onstituted after the :e(ruar", $%.1 revolution su&h that pro&essin of petitions for naturaliFation (" ad'inistrative pro&ess was suspendedL Durin the hearin s, petitioner testified as to his Aualifi&ations and presented three witnesses to &orro(orate his testi'on". So i'pressed was Prose&utor Isaa& )lvero <. !oran with the testi'on" of petitioner that, upon (ein as@ed (" the &ourt whether the State intended to present an" witness present an" witness a ainst hi', he re'ar@ed9 )&tuall", Iour Monor, with the testi'on" of the petitioner hi'self whi&h is rather surprisin , in the sense that he see's to (e well,versed with the 'a5or portion of the histor" of the Philippines, so, on our part, #e are convinced, (our )onor Please, t*at petitioner really deserves to be admitted as a citi+en of t*e P*ilippines.And for t*is reason, #e do not #is* to present any evidence to counteract or refute t*e testimony of t*e #itnesses for t*e petitioner, as #ell as t*e petitioner *imself. 0 )&&ordin l", on )u ust #5, $%%%, the trial &ourt ranted the petition and ad'itted petitioner to Philippine &itiFenship. 2he State, however, throu h the Offi&e of the Soli&itor -eneral, appealed all the na'es (" whi&h he is or had (een @nownL *#+ failed to state all his for'er pla&er of residen&e in violation of C.). No. 4/0, V/L *0+ failed to &ondu&t hi'self in a proper and irreproa&ha(le 'anner durin his entire sta" in the Philippines, in violation of V#L *4+ has no @nown lu&rative trade or o&&upation and his previous in&o'es have (een insuffi&ient or 'isde&lared, also in &ontravention of V#L and *5+ failed to support his petition with the appropriate do&u'entar" eviden&e.4 )nne6ed to the StateNs appellantNs (rief was a &op" of a $%// petition for naturaliFation filed (" petitioner with the Spe&ial Co''ittee on NaturaliFation in SCN Case No. 30$/1/, 5 in whi&h petitioner stated that in addition to his na'e of >On Chia,> he had li@ewise (een @nown sin&e &hildhood as >=oreto Chia On .> )s petitioner,

however, failed to state this other na'e in his $%.% petition for naturaliFation, it was &ontended that his petition 'ust fail.12he state also anne6ed in&o'e ta6 returns/ alle edl" filed (" petitioner fro' $%/0 to $%// to show that his net in&o'e &ould hardl" support hi'self and his fa'il". 2o prove that petitioner failed to &ondu&t hi'self in a proper and irreproa&ha(le 'anner durin his sta" in the Philippines, the State &ontended that, althou h petitioner &lai'ed that he and Ra'ona <illaruel had (een 'arried twi&e, on&e (efore a 5ud e in $%50, and then a ain in &hur&h in $%//, petitioner a&tuall" lived with his wife without the (enefit of 'arria e fro' $%50 until the" were 'arried in $%//. It was alle ed that petitioner failed to present his $%50 'arria e &ontra&t, if there (e an". 2he State also anne6ed a &op" of petitionerNs $%// 'arria e &ontra&t . and a 4oint, )ffidavit% e6e&uted (" petitioner and his wife. 2hese do&u'ents show that when petitioner 'arried Ra'ona <illaruel on :e(ruar" #0, $%//, no 'arria e li&ense had (een reAuired in a&&ordan&e with )rt. /1 of the Civil Code (e&ause petitioner and Ra'ona <illaruel had (een livin to ether as hus(and and wife sin&e $%50 without the (enefit of 'arria e. 2his, a&&ordin to the State, (elies his &lai' that when he started livin with his wife in $%50, the" had alread" (een 'arried. 2he State also ar ued that, as shown (" petitionerNs I''i rant Certifi&ate of Residen&e, >4.!. Basa Street, Iloilo,> (ut he did not in&lude said address in the petition.
$3

petitioner resided at

On Nove'(er $5, $%%1, the Court of )ppeals rendered its de&ision whi&h, as alread" noted, reversed the trial &ourt and denied petitionerNs appli&ation for naturaliFation. It ruled that due to the i'portan&e naturaliFation &ases, the State is not pre&luded fro' raisin Auestions not presented in the lower &ourt and (rou ht up for the first ti'e on appeal. $$ 2he appellate &ourt held9 )s &orre&tl" o(served (" the Offi&e of the Soli&itor -eneral, petitioner On Chia failed to state in this present petition for naturaliFation his other na'e, >=ORE2O CMI) ON-,> whi&h na'e appeared in his previous appli&ation under =etter of Instru&tion No. #/3. Na'es and pseudon"'s 'ust (e stated in the petition for naturaliFation and failure to in&lude the sa'e 'ilitates a ainst a de&ision in his favor. . . 2his is a 'andator" reAuire'ent to allow those persons who @now *petitioner+ (" those other na'es to &o'e forward and infor' the authorities of an" le al o(5e&tion whi&h 'i ht adversel" affe&t his appli&ation for &itiFenship. :urther'ore, On Chia failed to dis&lose in his petition for naturaliFation that he for'erl" resided in >4.!. Basa St., Iloilo> and >)li'odian, Iloilo.> Se&tion / of the Revised NaturaliFation =aw reAuires the appli&ant to state in his petition >his present and for'er pla&es of residen&e.> 2his reAuire'ent is 'andator" and failure of the petitioner to &o'pl" with it is fatal to the petition. )s e6plained (" the Court, the reason for the provision is to ive the pu(li&, as well as the investi atin a en&ies of the overn'ent, upon the pu(li&ation of the petition, an opportunit" to (e infor'ed thereof and voi&e their o(5e&tions a ainst the petitioner. B" failin to &o'pl" with this provision, the petitioner is deprivin the pu(li& and said a en&ies of su&h opportunit", thus defeatin the purpose of the law. . . On Chia had not also &ondu&ted hi'self in a proper and irreproa&ha(le 'anner when he lived,in with his wife for several "ears, and sired four &hildren out of wedlo&@. It has (een the &onsistent rulin that the >appli&antNs .,"ear &oha(itation with his wife without the (enefit of &ler " and (e ettin (" her three &hildren out of wedlo&@ is a &ondu&t far fro' (ein proper and irreproa&ha(le as reAuired (" the Revised NaturaliFation =aw>, and therefore disAualifies hi' fro' (e&o'in a &itiFen of the Philippines (" naturaliFation . . . =astl", petitioner On ChiaNs alle ed annual in&o'e in $%1$ of P5,333.33, e6&lusive of (onuses, &o''issions and allowan&es, is not lu&rative in&o'e. Mis failure to file an in&o'e ta6 return >(e&ause he is not lia(le for in&o'e ta6 "et> &onfir's that his in&o'e is low. . . >It is not onl" that the person havin the e'plo"'ent ets enou h for his ordinar" ne&essities in life. It 'ust (e shown that the e'plo"'ent ives one an in&o'e su&h that there is an appre&ia(le 'ar in of his in&o'e over e6penses as to (e a(le to provide for an adeAuate support in the event of une'plo"'ent, si&@ness, or disa(ilit" to wor@ and thus avoid oneNs (e&o'in the o(5e&t of &harit" or pu(li& &har e.> . . . Now that the" are in their old a e, petitioner On Chia and his wife are livin on the allowan&e iven to the' (" their &hildren. 2he 'onthl" pension iven (" the elder &hildren of the appli&ant &annot (e added to his in&o'e to 'a@e it lu&rative (e&ause li@e (onuses, &o''issions and allowan&es, said pensions are &ontin ent, spe&ulative and pre&arious. . .

Men&e, this petition (ased on the followin assi n'ent of errors9 I. 2ME CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S -R)<E=I )B?SED I2S DISCRE2ION IN R?=IN- 2M)2 IN N)2?R)=IE)2ION C)SES, 2ME )PPE==)2E CO?R2 C)N DENI )N )PP=IC)2ION :OR PMI=IPPINE CI2IEENSMIP ON 2ME B)SIS O: DOC?!EN2S NO2 PRESEN2ED BE:ORE 2ME 2RI)= CO?R2 )ND NO2 :OR!IN- P)R2 O: 2ME RECORDS O: 2ME C)SE. II. 2ME :INDIN- O: 2ME CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S 2M)2 2ME PE2I2IONER M)S BEEN GNO7N BI SO!E O2MER N)!E NO2 S2)2ED IN MIS PE2I2ION IS NO2 S?PPOR2ED BI 2ME E<IDENCE ON RECORD. III. CON2R)RI 2O 2ME :INDIN- O: 2ME CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S, 2ME PE2I2IONER S2)2ED IN MIS PE2I2ION )ND I2S )NNEUES MIS PRESEN2 )ND :OR!ER P=)CES O: RESIDENCE. I<. 2ME :INDIN- O: 2ME CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S 2M)2 2ME PE2I2IONER :)I=ED 2O COND?C2 MI!SE=: IN ) PROPER )ND IRREPRO)CM)B=E !)NNER IS NO2 S?PPOR2ED BI 2ME E<IDENCE ON RECORD. PetitionerNs prin&ipal &ontention is that the appellate &ourt erred in &onsiderin the do&u'ents whi&h had 'erel" (een anne6ed (" the State to its appellantNs (rief and, on the (asis of whi&h, 5ustified the reversal of the trial &ourtNs de&ision. Not havin (een presented and for'all" offered as eviden&e, the" are 'ere >s&rap*s+ of paper devoid of an" evidentiar" value,> $# so it was ar ued, (e&ause under Rule $0#, V04 of the Revised Rules on Eviden&e, the &ourt shall &onsider no eviden&e whi&h has not (een for'all" offered. 2he &ontention has no 'erit. Petitioner failed to note Rule $40
$0

of the Rules of Court whi&h provides that R

2hese rules shall not appl" to land re istration, &adastral and ele&tion &ases, naturali+ation and insolven&" pro&eedin s, and other &ases not herein provided for, e,cept by analogy or in a suppletory c*aracter and #*enever practicable and convenient. *E'phasis added+. Pres&indin fro' the a(ove, the rule on for'al offer of eviden&e *Rule $0#, V04+ now (ein invo@ed (" petitioner is &learl" not appli&a(le to the present &ase involvin a petition for naturaliFation. 2he onl" instan&e when said rules 'a" (e applied (" analo " or suppletoril" in su&h &ases is when it is >pra&ti&a(le and &onvenient.> 2hat is not the &ase here, sin&e relian&e upon the do&u'ents presented (" the State for the first ti'e on appeal, in fa&t, appears to (e the 'ore pra&ti&al and &onvenient &ourse of a&tion &onsiderin that de&isions in naturaliFation pro&eedin s are not &overed (" the rule on res judicata. $4 ConseAuentl", a final favora(le 5ud 'ent does not pre&lude the State fro' later on 'ovin for a revo&ation of the rant of naturaliFation on the (asis of the sa'e do&u'ents. Petitioner &lai's that as a result of the failure of the State to present and for'all" offer its do&u'entar" eviden&e (efore the trial &ourt, he was denied the ri ht to o(5e&t a ainst their authenti&it", effe&tivel" deprivin hi' of his funda'ental ri ht to pro&edural due pro&ess. $5 7e are not persuaded. Indeed, the reason for the rule prohi(itin the ad'ission of eviden&e whi&h has not (een for'all" offered is to afford the opposite part" the &han&e to o(5e&t to their ad'issi(ilit". $1 Petitioner &annot &lai' that he was deprived of the ri ht to o(5e&t to the authenti&it" of the do&u'ents su('itted to the appellate &ourt (" the State. Me &ould have in&luded his o(5e&tions, as he, in fa&t, did, in the (rief he filed with the Court of )ppeals. thus9 2he authenti&it" of the alleged petition for naturaliFation *SCN Case No. 30$/1/+ whi&h was supposedl" filed (" On Chia under =OI #/3 has not (een esta(lished. In fa&t, the &ase nu'(er of the alle ed petition for naturaliFation. . . is -./010 while the &ase nu'(er of the petition a&tuall" filed (" the appellee is -./001. 2hus, said do&u'ent is totall" unrelia(le and should not (e &onsidered (" the Monora(le Court in resolvin the instant appeal. $/ Indeed, the o(5e&tion is fli's" as the alle ed dis&repan&" is trivial, and, at 'ost, &an (e a&&ounted for as a t"po raphi&al error on the part of petitioner hi'self. 2hat >SCN Case No. 30$/1/,> a &op" of whi&h was anne6ed to the petition, is the &orre&t &ase nu'(er is &onfir'ed (" the Evaluation Sheet $. of the Spe&ial

Co''ittee on NaturaliFation whi&h was also do&@eted as >SCN Case No. 30$/1/.> Other than this, petitioner offered no eviden&e to disprove the authenti&it" of the do&u'ents presented (" the State. :urther'ore, the Court notes that these do&u'ents R na'el", the petition in SCN Case No. 30$/1/, petitionerNs 'arria e &ontra&t, the 5oint affidavit e6e&uted (" hi' and his wife, and petitionerNs in&o'e ta6 returns R are all pu(li& do&u'ents. )s su&h, the" have (een e6e&uted under oath. 2he" are thus relia(le. Sin&e petitioner failed to 'a@e a satisfa&tor" showin of an" flaw or irre ularit" that 'a" &ast dou(t on the authenti&it" of these do&u'ents, it is our &on&lusion that the appellate &ourt did not err in rel"in upon the'. One last point. 2he a(ove dis&ussion would have (een enou h to dispose of this &ase, (ut to settle all the issues raised, we shall (riefl" dis&uss the effe&t of petitionerNs failure to in&lude the address >4.!. Basa St., Iloilo> in his petition, in a&&ordan&e with V/, C.). No. 4/0. 2his address appears on petitionerNs I''i rant Certifi&ate of Residen&e, a do&u'ent whi&h for's part of the re&ords as )nne6 ) of his $%.% petition for naturaliFation. Petitioner ad'its that he failed to 'ention said address in his petition, (ut ar ues that sin&e the I''i rant Certifi&ate of Residen&e &ontainin it had (een full" pu(lished, $% with the petition and the other anne6es, su&h pu(li&ation &onstitutes su(stantial &o'plian&e with V/. #3 2his is alle edl" (e&ause the pu(li&ation effe&tivel" satisfied the o(5e&tive sou ht to (e a&hieved (" su&h reAuire'ent, i.e., to ive investi atin a en&ies of the overn'ent the opportunit" to &he&@ on the (a&@ round of the appli&ant and prevent suppression of infor'ation re ardin an" possi(le 'is(ehavior on his part in an" &o''unit" where he 'a" have lived at one ti'e or another.#$ It is settled, however, that naturaliFation laws should (e ri idl" enfor&ed and stri&tl" &onstrued in favor of the overn'ent and a ainst the appli&ant. ## )s noted (" the State, C.). No. 4/0, V/ &learl" provides that the appli&ant for naturaliFation shall set forth in the petition his present and for'er pla&es of residen&e. #0 2his provision and the rule of stri&t appli&ation of the law in naturaliFation &ases defeat petitionerNs ar u'ent of >su(stantial &o'plian&e> with the reAuire'ent under the Revised NaturaliFation =aw. On this round alone, the instant petition ou ht to (e denied.
/2#p*i/.n3t

7MERE:ORE, the de&ision of the Court of )ppeals is )::IR!ED and the instant petition is here(" DENIED. G.R. No. 174240 Oc2o,*r 17, 200)

ROLAN!O SASAN, SR., LEONILO !A<!A<, MO!ESTO AGUIRRE, ALE"AN!RO AR!IMER, ELEUTERIO SACIL, 'ILFRE!O "UEGOS, PETRONILO CARCE!O a#$ CESAR PACIENCIA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LA%OR RELATIONS COMMISSION 4T( !I ISION, EEUITA%LE-PCI %ANF a#$ (ELPMATE, INC.,respondents. DECISION C(ICO-NA.ARIO, J.& )ssailed in this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the De&ision $ dated #4 )pril #331 of the Court of )ppeals in C),-.R. SP No. /%%$#, whi&h affir'ed the De&ision dated ## 4anuar" #330 of the National =a(or Relations Co''ission *N=RC+ in 4"$C Case 4o. 5&---67/&6--6 findin that Melp'ate, In&. *MI+ is a le iti'ate independent 5o( &ontra&tor and that the petitioners were not ille all" dis'issed fro' wor@L and the Resolution# dated 0$ O&to(er #331 of the sa'e &ourt den"in the !otion for Re&onsideration filed (" the petitioners. Respondent EAuita(le,PCI Ban@ *E,PCIBan@+,0 a (an@in entit" dul" or aniFed and e6istin under and (" virtue of Philippine laws, entered into a Contra&t for Servi&es 4 with MI, a do'esti& &orporation pri'aril" en a ed in the (usiness of providin 5anitorial and 'essen erial servi&es. Pursuant to their &ontra&t, MI shall hire and assi n wor@ers to E,PCIBan@ to perfor' 5anitorialH'essen erial and 'aintenan&e servi&es. 2he &ontra&t was i'pliedl" renewed "ear after "ear. Petitioners Rolando Sasan, Sr., 5 =eonilo Da"da", 1 !odesto ) uirre,/ )le5andro )rdi'er,. Eleuterio Sa&il,% 7ilfredo 4ue os,$3 Petronilo Car&edo,$$ and Cesar Pe&ien&ia$# were a'on those e'plo"ed and assi ned to E,PCIBan@ at its (ran&h alon -orordo )venue, =ahu , Ce(u Cit", as well as to its other (ran&hes in the <isa"as. $0

O #0 4ul" #33$, petitioners filed with the )r(itration Bran&h of the N=RC in Ce(u Cit" separate &o'plaints$4a ainst E,PCIBan@ and MI for ille al dis'issal, with &lai's for separation pa", servi&e in&entive leave pa", allowan&es, da'a es, attorne";s fees and &osts. 2heir &o'plaints were do&@eted as N=RC R)B,<II Case No. 3/,$0.$,#33$ and raffled to =a(or )r(iter 4ose -. -utierreF *=a(or )r(iter -utierreF+ for their proper disposition. Su(seAuentl", on ## )u ust #33$, the petitioners $5 a'ended their &o'plaints to in&lude a &lai' for $0th 'onth,pa". Several &on&iliation hearin s were s&heduled (" =a(or )r(iter -utierreF (ut the parties still failed to arrive at a 'utuall" (enefi&ial settle'entL hen&e, =a(or )r(iter -utierreF ordered that the" su('it their respe&tive position papers. In their position papers, petitioners &lai'ed that the" had (e&o'e re ular e'plo"ees of E,PCIBan@ with respe&t to the a&tivities for whi&h the" were e'plo"ed, havin &ontinuousl" rendered 5anitorial and 'essen erial servi&es to the (an@ for 'ore than one "earL that E,PCIBan@ had dire&t &ontrol and supervision over the 'eans and 'ethods (" whi&h the" were to perfor' their 5o(sL and that their dis'issal (" MI was null and void (e&ause the latter had no power to do so sin&e the" had (e&o'e re ular e'plo"ees of E,PCIBan@. :or its part, E,PCIBan@ averred that it entered into a Contra&t for Servi&es with MI, an independent 5o( &ontra&tor whi&h hired and assi ned petitioners to the (an@ to perfor' 5anitorial and 'essen erial servi&es thereat. It was MI that paid petitioners; wa es, 'onitored petitioners; dail" ti'e re&ords *D2R+ and unifor's, and e6er&ised dire&t &ontrol and supervision over the petitioners and that therefore MI has ever" ri ht to ter'inate their servi&es le all". E,PCIBan@ &ould not (e held lia(le for whatever 'isdeed MI had &o''itted a ainst its e'plo"ees. MI, on the other hand, asserted that it was an independent 5o( &ontra&tor en a ed in the (usiness of providin 5anitorial and related servi&es to (usiness esta(lish'ents, and E,PCIBan@ was one of its &lients. Petitioners were its e'plo"ees, part of its pool of 5anitorsH'essen ers assi ned to E,PCIBan@. 2he Contra&t for Servi&es (etween MI and E,PCIBan@ e6pired on $5 4ul" #333. E,PCIBan@ no lon er renewed said &ontra&t with MI and, instead, (idded out its 5anitorial reAuire'ents to two other 5o( &ontra&tors, )(le Servi&es and Puritan. MI desi nated petitioners to new wor@ assi n'ents, (ut the latter refused to &o'pl" with the sa'e. Petitioners were not dis'issed (" MI, whether a&tuall" or &onstru&tivel", thus, petitioners; &o'plaints (efore the N=RC were without (asis. =a(or )r(iter -utierreF fo&used on the followin issues9 *a+ whether petitioners were re ular e'plo"ees of MIL *(+ whether petitioners were ille all" dis'issed fro' their e'plo"'entL and *&+ whether petitioners were entitled to their 'one" &lai's. On / 4anuar" #33#, on the (asis of the parties; position papers and do&u'entar" eviden&e, =a(or )r(iter -utierreF rendered a De&ision findin that MI was not a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor on the round that it did not possess the reAuired su(stantial &apital or invest'ent to a&tuall" perfor' the 5o(, wor@, or servi&e under its own a&&ount and responsi(ilit" as reAuired under the =a(or Code. $1 MI is therefore a la(or,onl" &ontra&tor and the real e'plo"er of petitioners is E,PCIBan@ whi&h is held lia(le to petitioners. )&&ordin to =a(or )r(iter -utierreF9 C2Dhe undisputed fa&ts show that the Cherein petitionersD were 'ade to perfor' not onl" as 5anitors (ut also as 'essen ers, drivers and one of the' even wor@ed as an ele&tri&ian. :or us, these 5o(s are not onl" dire&tl" related to the 'ain (usiness of the prin&ipal (ut are, li@ewise dee'ed ne&essar" in the &ondu&t of respondent EAuita(le,PCI Ban@;s prin&ipal (usiness. 2hus, (ased on the a(ove, we so de&lare that the CpetitionersD are e'plo"ees of respondent EAuita(le,PCI Ban@. )nd havin wor@ed with respondent EAuita(le,PCI Ban@ for 'ore than one *$+ "ear, the" are dee'ed re ular e'plo"ees. 2he" &annot, therefore, (e re'oved fro' e'plo"'ent without &ause and without due pro&ess, whi&h is wantin in this &ase. Men&e, the severan&e of their e'plo"'ent in the uise of ter'ination of &ontra&t is ille al. $/ In the dispositive portion of his / 4anuar" #33# De&ision, =a(or )r(iter -utierreF awarded to petitioners the followin a'ounts9

I. J CES)R P)CIENCI) a+ Ba&@wa es 4ul" $5, #33$ to 4anuar" ., #33# W P$%3.33 per da" W 5 'onths and 1 da"s W $01 da"s 6 P$%3.33 (+ Separation Pa" 4une $3, $%%1 to 4ul" $5, #33$ W 5 "ears WP$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 5 "ears H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal II J Do'inador Sui&o, 4r. *did not file )'ended Co'plaint+ a+ Ba&@wa es 4ul" $5, #33$ to 4anuar" $5, #33# sa'e as Pa&ien&ia (+ Separation Pa" :e(. #, $%%% to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 #.5 "ears H # 2otal III J Roland !osAuera *did not file )'ended Co'plaint+ a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" !ar&h ., $%%. to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 0 "rs. H # 2otal I< J Petronillo Car&edo a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" Sept. $1, $%.4 to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $/ "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal < J Rolando Sasan, Sr. a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" O&to(er $%.% to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $# "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal <I J =eonilo Da"da" a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ W P#5,.43.33

WP$#,053.33

W P4,%43.33 P40,$03.33

W P#5,.43.33 W P1,$/5.33 W P0#,3$5.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P/,4$3.33 W P00,#53.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P4$,%%3.33 W P4,%43.33 W P/#,//3.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P#%,143.33 W P4,%43.33 W P13,4#3.33 W P#5,.43.33

(+ Separation Pa" :e(. ., $%.0 to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $. "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal <II J Eleuterio Sa&il a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" 4une #, $%%# to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 % "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal <III J !ario 4untilla a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&en&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" O&to(er /, $%./ to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $4 "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal IU J 7ilfredo 4ue os a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&en&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" 4ul" #0, $%%3 to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $$ "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal U J !odesto ) uirre a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" W 4an. 5, $%%# to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 %.5 "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal UI J )le5andro )rdi'er a+ Ba&@wa es *sa'e as Pa&ien&ia+ (+ Separation Pa" W 4an. #3, $%%3 to 4ul" $5, #33$ W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 6 $$.5 "rs. H # &+ $0th !onth Pa" W P$%3.33 6 #1 da"s 2otal

W P44,413.33 W P4,%43.33 W P/5,#43.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P##,#03.33 W P4,%43.33 W P50,3$3.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P04,5.3.33 W P4,%43.33 W P15,013.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P#/,$/3.33 W P4,.43.33 W P5/,%53.33 W P#5,.43.33

W P#0,415.33

W P4,%43.33 W P54,#45.33 W P#5,.43.33 W P#.,435.33 W P4,%43.33 W P5%,$.5.33

6666 7MERE:ORE, the fore oin pre'ises &onsidered, 5ud 'ent is here(" rendered dire&tin the respondents EAuita(le PCI Ban@ and Melp'ate, In&. to pa" 5ointl" and solidaril" the &o'plainants as follows9 $. Cesar Pa&ien&ia #. Do'inador Sui&o, 4r. 0. Roland !osAuera 4. Petronilo Car&eda 5. Roland Sasan, Sr. 1. =eonilo Da"da" /. Eleuterio Sa&il .. !ario 4untilla %. 7ilfredo 4ue os $3. !odesto ) uirre $$. )le5andro )rdi'er 2O2)= , , , , , , , , , , , , P 40,$03.33 0#,3$5.33 00,#53.33 /#,//3.33 13,4#3.33 /5,#43.33 50,3$3.33 15,013.33 5/,%53.33 54,#45.33 5%,$.5.33 P131,5/5.33$.

) rieved (" the de&ision of =a(or )r(iter -utierreF, respondents E,PCIBan@ and MI appealed the sa'e to the N=RC, 4th Division, stationed in Ce(u Cit". 2heir appeals were do&@eted as N=RC Case No. <,333#4$,#33#. In support of its alle ation that it was a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor, MI su('itted (efore the N=RC several do&u'ents whi&h it did not present (efore =a(or )r(iter -utierreF. 2hese are9 $. Certifi&ate of :ilin of Certifi&ate of In&rease of Capital Sto&@, Certifi&ate of :ilin )'ended )rti&les of In&orporation, and -eneral Infor'ation Sheet Sto&@ Corporation of MI showin therein that it in&reased its authoriFed &apital sto&@ fro' P$,533,333.33 to P#3,333,333.33 on $# !ar&h $%%% with the Se&urities and E6&han e Co''issionL #. )udited :inan&ial State'ent of MI showin therein that it has 2otal )ssets of P#3,%0%,%05./# as of 0$ De&e'(er #333L 0. 2ransfer Certifi&ate of 2itle No. $$3$/0 and 2a6 De&laration No. -R#G,3%,310,335.# re istered under the na'e of MI showin that it has a par&el of land with !ar@et <alue of P$,$1.,.13.33 lo&ated alon RiFal )venue *now Ba&also )venue+, Ce(u Cit", and 4. 2a6 De&laration No. -R#G,3%,310,335.0 re istered under the na'e of MI showin that it has a &o''er&ial (uildin &onstru&ted on the pre&edin lot lo&ated alon Ba&also )venue, Ce(u Cit" with 'ar@et value of P#,5$5,$/3.33.$% 2he N=RC pro'ul ated its De&ision on ## 4anuar" #330 'odif"in the rulin of =a(or )r(iter -utierreF. 2he N=RC too@ into &onsideration the do&u'entar" eviden&e presented (" MI for the first ti'e on appeal and, on the (asis thereof, de&lared MI as a hi hl" &apitaliFed venture with suffi&ient &apitaliFation, whi&h &annot (e &onsidered en a ed in >la(or,onl" &ontra&tin .> On the &har e of ille al dis'issal, the N=RC ruled that9

2he &har e of ille al dis'issal was pre'aturel" filed. 2he re&ord shows that (arel" ei ht *.+ da"s fro' $5 4ul" #33$ when the &o'plainants were pla&ed on a te'porar" >off,detail,> the" filed their &o'plaints on #0 4ul" #33$ and a'ended their &o'plaints on ## )u ust #33$ a ainst the respondents on the presu'ption that their servi&es were alread" ter'inated. 2e'porar" >off,detail> is not eAuivalent to dis'issal. 6 6 6. #3 2he N=RC deleted =a(or )r(iter -utierreF;s award of (a&@wa es and separation pa", (ut affir'ed his award for $0th 'onth pa" and attorne";s fees eAuivalent to ten per&ent *$3T+ of the $0 th 'onth pa", to the petitioners.#$2hus, the N=RC de&reed in its ## 4anuar" #330 De&ision, the pa"'ent of the followin redu&ed a'ounts to petitioners9 7MERE:ORE, pre'ises &onsidered, the de&ision of =a(or )r(iter 4ose -. -utierreF dated / 4anuar" #33# is !ODI:IED, to wit9 Orderin respondents Melp'ate, In&. and EAuita(le PCI Ban@ to 5ointl" and severall" ## pa" the &o'plainants of their $0th 'onth pa" and attorne";s fees in the a re ate a'ount of :ort",2hree 2housand :our Mundred Sevent",2wo and 33H$33 *P40,4/#.33+, (ro@en down as follows9 $. ) uirre, !odesto #. )rdi'er, )le5andro 0. Car&edo, Petronilo 4. Da"da", =eonilo 5. 4ue os, 7ilfredo 1. 4untilla, !ario /. Pa&ien&ia, Cesar .. Sa&il, Eleuterio 2O2)= , , , , , , , , P 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 5,404.33 P40,4/#.33#0

Petitioners; !otion for Re&onsideration was denied (" the N=RC in its Resolution dated $ 4ul" #330. #4 Distressed (" the de&ision of the N=RC, petitioners sou ht re&ourse with the Court of )ppeals (" filin a Petition for Certiorari#5 under Rule 15 of the $%%/ Rules of Civil Pro&edure do&@eted as C),-.R. SP No. /%%$#. In its De&ision dated #4 )pril #331, the Court of )ppeals affir'ed the findin s of the N=RC that MI was a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor and that it did not ille all" dis'iss petitioners9 )s to the Auestion of whether or not, as a le iti'ate independent 5o( &ontra&tor, respondent MI ille all" dis'issed the petitioners. 7e rule in the ne ative. It is undisputed that the &ontra&t (etween respondent MI and its &lient E,PCIBan@ e6pired on 4ul" $5, #333. 2he re&ord shows that after said e6piration, respondent MI offered the petitioners new wor@ assi n'ents to various esta(lish'ents whi&h are MI;s &lients. 2he petitioners, therefore, were not even pla&ed on >floatin status.> 2he" si'pl" refused, without 5ustifia(le reason, to assu'e their new wor@ assi n'ents whi&h refusal was tanta'ount to a(andon'ent. 2here (ein no ille al dis'issal, petitioners are not entitled to (a&@wa es or separation pa".#1 2he fallo of the #4 )pril #331 De&ision of the appellate &ourt reads9

7MERE:ORE, in view of the fore oin pre'ises, 5ud 'ent is here(" rendered (" us DENIIN- the petition filed in this &ase and )::IR!IN- the de&ision of the N=RC, :ourth Division, in N=RC Case No. <,333$45, #330 pro'ul ated on 4une ##, #330.#/ Petitioners now &o'e (efore us via the instant Petition raisin the followin issues9 7ME2MER OR NO2 2ME MONOR)B=E CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S )C2ED IN EUCESS O: 2MEIR 4?RISDIC2ION )NDHOR CO!!I22ED -R)<E )B?SE O: DISCRE2ION IN ?PMO=DIN- 2ME N=RC 42M DI<ISION;S DECISION )ND -R)<E=I ERRED IN9 I. )CCEP2IN- )ND )PPRECI)2IN- 2ME PIECES O: E<IDENCE S?B!I22ED BI RESPONDEN2S D?RIN- )PPE)=, )== EUIS2IN- D?RIN- 2ME 2I!E 2ME N=RC R)B /;S 2RI)=, CON2R)RI 2O 2MIS MONOR)B=E CO?R2;S PRE<IO?S ES2)B=ISMED DECISIONS. II. RE<ERSIN-, 7I2MO?2 )NI =E-)= B)SIS, 2ME :)C2?)= :INDIN- O: N=RC R)B / 2M)2 2ME RESPONDEN2 MI 7)S =)BOR ON=I CON2R)C2OR. III. R?=IN-, 7I2MO?2 )NI =E-)= B)SIS, 2M)2 2ME I==E-)= DIS!ISS)= CO!P=)IN2S 7ERE PRE!)2?RE=I :I=ED.#. Before pro&eedin to the su(stantive issues, we first address the pro&edural issues raised (" petitioners. Petitioners o(5e&t to the a&&eptan&e and &onsideration (" the N=RC of the eviden&e presented (" MI for the first ti'e on appeal. 2his is not a novel pro&edural issue, however, and our 5urispruden&e is alread" replete with &ases#% allowin the N=RC to ad'it eviden&e, not presented (efore the =a(or )r(iter, and su('itted to the N=RC for the first ti'e on appeal. 2e&hni&al rules of eviden&e are not (indin in la(or &ases. =a(or offi&ials should use ever" reasona(le 'eans to as&ertain the fa&ts in ea&h &ase speedil" and o(5e&tivel", without re ard to te&hni&alities of law or pro&edure, all in the interest of due pro&ess. 03 2he su('ission of additional eviden&e (efore the N=RC is not prohi(ited (" its New Rules of Pro&edure. )fter all, rules of eviden&e prevailin in &ourts of law or eAuit" are not &ontrollin in la(or &ases. 2he N=RC and la(or ar(iters are dire&ted to use ever" and all reasona(le 'eans to as&ertain the fa&ts in ea&h &ase speedil" and o(5e&tivel", without re ard to te&hni&alities of law and pro&edure all in the interest of su(stantial 5usti&e. In @eepin with this dire&tive, it has (een held that the N=RC 'a" &onsider eviden&e, su&h as do&u'ents and affidavits, su('itted (" the parties for the first ti'e on appeal. 2he su('ission of additional eviden&e on appeal does not pre5udi&e the other part" for the latter &ould su('it &ounter,eviden&e. 0$ In Clarion Printing )ouse, 8nc. v. 4ational "abor $elations Commission ,0# we a ain e'phasiFed that9 C2Dhe N=RC is not pre&luded fro' re&eivin eviden&e, even for the first ti'e on appeal, (e&ause te&hni&al rules of pro&edure are not (indin in la(or &ases. 2he settled rule is that the N=RC is not pre&luded fro' re&eivin eviden&e on appeal as te&hni&al rules of eviden&e are not (indin in la(or &ases. In fa&t, la(or offi&ials are 'andated (" the =a(or Code to use ever" and all reasona(le 'eans to as&ertain the fa&ts in ea&h &ase speedil" and o(5e&tivel", without re ard to te&hni&alities of law or pro&edure, all in the interest of due pro&ess. 2hus, in "a#in Security Services v. 4"$C, and Bristol "aboratories Employees9 Association&:FA v. 4"$C , we held that even if the eviden&e was not su('itted to the la(or ar(iter, the fa&t that it was dul" introdu&ed on appeal to the N=RC is enou h (asis for the latter to (e 'ore 5udi&ious in ad'ittin the sa'e, instead of fallin (a&@ on the 'ere te&hni&alit" that said eviden&e &an no lon er (e &onsidered on appeal. Certainl", the first &ourse of a&tion would (e 'ore &onsistent with eAuit" and the (asi& notions of fairness. :or the sa'e reasons, we &annot find 'erit in petitioners; protestations a ainst the do&u'entar" eviden&e su('itted (" MI (e&ause the" were 'ere photo&opies. Evidentl", petitioners are invo@in the (est eviden&e rule, espoused in Se&tion 0, Rule$03 of the Rules of Court. It provides that9

Se&tion 0. J ;riginal document must be produced< e,ceptions. = 7hen the su(5e&t of inAuir" is the &ontents of a do&u'ent, no eviden&e shall (e ad'issi(le other than the ori inal do&u'ent itself 6 6 6. 2he a(ove provision e6pli&itl" 'andates that when the su(5e&t of inAuir" is the &ontents of a do&u'ent, no eviden&e shall (e ad'issi(le other than the ori inal do&u'ent itself. Nota(l", c*r2/3/*$ 2r1* co:/*9 of these do&u'ents, a&&epta(le under the Rules of Court00 were furnished to the petitioners. Even assu'in that petitioners were iven 'ere photo&opies, a ain, we stress that pro&eedin s (efore the N=RC are not &overed (" the te&hni&al rules of eviden&e and pro&edure as o(served in the re ular &ourts. 2e&hni&al rules of eviden&e do not appl" if the de&ision to rant the petition pro&eeds fro' an e6a'ination of its suffi&ien&" as well as a &areful loo@ into the ar u'ents &ontained in position papers and other do&u'ents. 04 Petitioners had 'ore than adeAuate opportunit" when the" filed their 'otion for re&onsideration (efore the N=RC, their Petition to the Court of )ppeals and even to this Court, to refute or present their &ounter,eviden&e to the do&u'entar" eviden&e presented (" MI. Mavin failed in this respe&t, petitioners &annot now (e heard to &o'plain a(out these do&u'entar" eviden&es presented (" MI upon whi&h the N=RC and the Court of )ppeals (ased its findin that MI is a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor. 2he essen&e of due pro&ess is si'pl" an opportunit" to (e heard, or as applied to ad'inistrative pro&eedin s, a fair and reasona(le opportunit" to e6plain oneNs side. It is also an opportunit" to see@ a re&onsideration of the a&tion or rulin &o'plained of. It is not the denial of the ri ht to (e heard (ut denial of the opportunit" to (e heard that &onstitutes violation of due pro&ess of law. Petitioners herein were afforded ever" opportunit" to (e heard and to see@ re&onsideration of the adverse 5ud 'ent a ainst the'. 2he" had ever" opportunit" to stren then their positions (" presentin their own su(stantial eviden&e to &ontrovert those su('itted (" E, PCIBan@ and MI (efore the N=RC, and even (efore the Court of )ppeals. It &annot win its &ase (" 'erel" raisin unsu(stantiated dou(t or rel"in on the wea@ness of the adverse parties; eviden&e. 7e now pro&eed to the resolution of the su(stantive issues su('itted (" petitioners for our &onsideration, parti&ularl", whether MI is a la(or,onl" &onta&tor and E,PCIBan@ should (e dee'ed petitioners; prin&ipal e'plo"erL and whether petitioners were ille all" dis'issed fro' their e'plo"'ent. Per'issi(le 5o( &ontra&tin or su(&ontra&tin refers to an arran e'ent where(" a prin&ipal a rees to put out or far' out to a &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor the perfor'an&e or &o'pletion of a spe&ifi& 5o(, wor@ or servi&e within a definite or predeter'ined period, re ardless of whether su&h 5o(, wor@ or servi&e is to (e perfor'ed or &o'pleted within or outside the pre'ises of the prin&ipal. 05 ) person is &onsidered en a ed in le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tin or su(&ontra&tin if the followin &onditions &on&ur9 *a+ 2he &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor &arries on a distin&t and independent (usiness and underta@es to perfor' the 5o(, wor@ or servi&e on its own a&&ount and under its own responsi(ilit" a&&ordin to its own 'anner and 'ethod, and free fro' the &ontrol and dire&tion of the prin&ipal in all 'atters &onne&ted with the perfor'an&e of the wor@ e6&ept as to the results thereofL *(+ 2he &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor has su(stantial &apital or invest'entL and *&+ 2he a ree'ent (etween the prin&ipal and &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor assures the &ontra&tual e'plo"ees entitle'ent to all la(or and o&&upational safet" and health standards, free e6er&ise of the ri ht to self, or aniFation, se&urit" of tenure, and so&ial and welfare (enefits. 01 In &ontrast, la(or,onl" &ontra&tin , a prohi(ited a&t, is an arran e'ent where the &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor 'erel" re&ruits, supplies or pla&es wor@ers to perfor' a 5o(, wor@ or servi&e for a prin&ipal. 0/ In la(or,onl" &ontra&tin , the followin ele'ents are present9 *a+ 2he &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor does not have su(stantial &apital or invest'ent to a&tuall" perfor' the 5o(, wor@ or servi&e under its own a&&ount and responsi(ilit"L and *(+ 2he e'plo"ees re&ruited, supplied or pla&ed (" su&h &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor are perfor'in a&tivities whi&h are dire&tl" related to the 'ain (usiness of the prin&ipal. 0.

In distin uishin (etween per'issi(le 5o( &ontra&tin and prohi(ited la(or,onl" &ontra&tin , 0% we elu&idated in5inoya v. 4ational "abor $elations Commission,43 that it is not enou h to show su(stantial &apitaliFation or invest'ent in the for' of tools, eAuip'ent, etc. Other fa&ts that 'a" (e &onsidered in&lude the followin 9 whether or not the &ontra&tor is &arr"in on an independent (usinessL the nature and e6tent of the wor@L the s@ill reAuiredL the ter' and duration of the relationshipL the ri ht to assi n the perfor'an&e of spe&ified pie&es of wor@L the &ontrol and supervision of the wor@ to anotherL the e'plo"er;s power with respe&t to the hirin , firin and pa"'ent of the &ontra&tor;s wor@ersL the &ontrol of the pre'isesL the dut" to suppl" pre'ises, tools, applian&es, 'aterials and la(orL and the 'ode and 'anner or ter's of pa"'ent. 4$ Si'pl" put, the totalit" of the fa&ts and the surroundin &ir&u'stan&es of the &ase are to (e &onsidered. 4# Ea&h &ase 'ust (e deter'ined (" its own fa&ts and all the features of the relationship are to (e &onsidered. 40 In the &ase at (ar, we find su(stantial eviden&e to support the findin of the N=RC, affir'ed (" the Court of )ppeals, that MI is a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor. 7e ta@e note that MI has (een issued (" the Depart'ent of =a(or and E'plo"'ent *DO=E+ Certifi&ate of Re istration44 Nu'(ered <II,.5%,$#%/,34.. 2he said &ertifi&ate states a'on other thin s9 >CER2I:IC)2E O: RE-IS2R)2ION Nu'(ered <II,.5%,$#%/,34. is issued to ME=P!)2E, INCORPOR)2ED 003 N. Ba&also )venue, Ce(u Cit" for havin &o'plied with the reAuire'ents as provided for under the =a(or Code, as a'ended, and its I'ple'entin Rules and havin paid the re istration fee in the a'ount of ONE M?NDRED PESOS *P$33.33+ per Offi&ial Re&eipt Nu'(er %34#/1%, dated O&to(er $1, $%%/. In witness whereof, and (" authorit" vested in 'e (" the =a(or Code, as a'ended, and its I'ple'entin Rules spe&ifi&all" Depart'ent Order No. $3 series of $%%/, I have hereunto set '" hand and affi6ed the Offi&ial on this #0rd da" of De&e'(er $%%/.>45 Mavin (een issued (" a pu(li& offi&er, this &ertifi&ation &arries with it the presu'ption that it was issued in the re ular perfor'an&e of offi&ial dut". 41 In the a(sen&e of proof, petitioner;s (are assertion &annot prevail over this presu'ption. !oreover, the DO=E (ein the a en&" pri'aril" responsi(le for re ulatin the (usiness of independent 5o( &ontra&tors, we &an presu'e in the a(sen&e of eviden&e to the &ontrar" that it thorou hl" evaluated the reAuire'ents su('itted (" MI as a pre&ondition to the issuan&e of the Cerifi&ate of Re istration. 2he eviden&e on re&ord also shows that MI is &arr"in on a distin&t and independent (usiness fro' E,PCIBan@. 2he e'plo"ees of MI are assi ned to &lients to perfor' 5anitorial and 'essen erial servi&es, &learl" distin uisha(le fro' the (an@in servi&es in whi&h E,PCIBan@ is en a ed. Despite the afore,'entioned &o'plian&e (" MI with the reAuisites for per'issi(le 5o( &ontra&tin , =a(or )r(iter -utierreF still de&lared that MI was en a ed in prohi(ited la(or,onl" &ontra&tin (e&ause it did not possess su(stantial &apital or invest'ent to a&tuall" perfor' the 5o(, wor@ or servi&e under its own a&&ount or responsi(ilit". Both the N=RC and the Court of )ppeals ruled to the &ontrar", and we a ree. >Su(stantial &apital or invest'ent> refers to &apital sto&@s and su(s&ri(ed &apitaliFation in the &ase of &orporations, tools, eAuip'ents, i'ple'ents, 'a&hineries and wor@ pre'ises, a&tuall" and dire&tl" used (" the &ontra&tor or su(&ontra&tor in the perfor'an&e or &o'pletion of the 5o(, wor@ or servi&e &ontra&ted out. 4/ )n independent &ontra&tor 'ust have either su(stantial &apital or invest'ent in the for' of tools, eAuip'ent, 'a&hineries, wor@ pre'ises, a'on others. 2he law does not reAuire (oth su(stantial &apital and invest'ent in

the for' of tools, eAuip'ent, 'a&hineries, etc.4. It is enou h that it has su(stantial &apital. In the &ase of MI, it has proven (oth. 7e have e6postulated that on&e it is esta(lished that an entit" su&h as in this &ase, MI has su(stantial &apital, it was no lon er ne&essar" to addu&e further eviden&e to prove that it does not fall within the purview of >la(or, onl"> &ontra&tin .4% 2here is even no need for MI to refute the &ontention of petitioners that so'e of the a&tivities the" perfor'ed su&h as those of 'essen erial servi&es are dire&tl" related to the prin&ipal (usiness of E, PCIBan@. In an" event, we have earlier de&lared that while these servi&es rendered (" the petitioners as 5anitors, 'essen ers and drivers are &onsidered dire&tl" related to the prin&ipal (usiness of a (an@, in this &ase E, PCIBan@, nevertheless, the" are not ne&essar" in the &ondu&t of its *E,PCIB)NG;s+ prin&ipal (usiness. 53 MI has su(stantial &apital in the a'ount of P#3,%0%,%05./#. It has its own (uildin where it holds offi&e and it has (een en a ed in (usiness for 'ore than a de&ade now. 5$ )s o(served (" the Court of )ppeals, surel", su&h a well,esta(lished (usiness entit" &annot (e &onsidered a la(or,onl" &ontra&tor. Et&hed in an unendin strea' of &ases are four standards in deter'inin the e6isten&e of an e'plo"er, e'plo"ee relationship, na'el"9 *a+ the 'anner of sele&tion and en a e'ent of the putative e'plo"eeL *(+ the 'ode of pa"'ent of wa esL *&+ the presen&e or a(sen&e of power of dis'issalL and, *d+ the presen&e or a(sen&e of &ontrol of the putative e'plo"ee;s &ondu&t. !ost deter'inative a'on these fa&tors is the so,&alled >&ontrol test.>5# 2he presen&e of the first reAuisite for the e6isten&e of an e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship to wit, the sele&tion and en a e'ent of the e'plo"ee is shown (" the fa&t that it was MI whi&h sele&ted and en a ed the servi&es of petitioners as its e'plo"ees. 2his is fortified (" the provision in the &ontra&t of servi&es (etween MI and E, PCIBan@ whi&h states9 Selection, Engagement, :isc*arge. CMID shall have e6&lusive dis&retion in the sele&tion, en a e'ent, investi ation, dis&ipline and dis&har e of its e'plo"ees. 50 On the se&ond reAuisite re ardin the pa"'ent of wa es, it was MI who paid petitioners their wa es and who provided their dail" ti'e re&ords and unifor's and other 'aterials ne&essar" for the wor@ the" perfor'ed. 2herefore, it is MI who is responsi(le for petitioner;s &lai's for wa es and other e'plo"ee;s (enefits. Pre&isel", the &ontra&t of servi&es (etween MI and E,PCIBan@ reveals the followin 9 8ndemnity for Salaries and Benefits, etc. CMID shall (e responsi(le for the salaries, allowan&es, overti'e and holida" pa", and other (enefits of its personnel in&ludin withholdin ta6es. 54 )s to the third reAuisite on the power to &ontrol the e'plo"ee;s &ondu&t, and the fourth reAuisite re ardin the power of dis'issal, a ain E,PCIBan@ did not have the power to &ontrol petitioners with respe&t to the 'eans and 'ethods (" whi&h their wor@ was to (e a&&o'plished. It li@ewise had no power of dis'issal over the petitioners. )ll that E,PCIBan@ &ould do was to report to MI an" untoward a&t, ne li en&e, 'is&ondu&t or 'alfeasan&e of an" e'plo"ee assi ned to the pre'ises. 2he &ontra&t of servi&es (etween E,PCIBan@ and MI is noteworth". It states9 CMID shall have the entire &har e, &ontrol and supervision over all its e'plo"ees who 'a" (e fielded to CE, PCIBan@D. :or this purpose, CMID shall assi n a re ular supervisor of its e'plo"ees who 'a" (e fielded to the Ban@ and whi&h re ular supervisor shall e6&lusivel" supervise and &ontrol the a&tivities and fun&tions defined in Se&tion $ hereof. 6 6 6.55 )ll these &ir&u'stan&es esta(lish that MI undertoo@ said &ontra&t on its a&&ount, under its own responsi(ilit", a&&ordin to its own 'anner and 'ethod, and free fro' the &ontrol and dire&tion of E,PCIBan@. 7here the &ontrol of the prin&ipal is li'ited onl" to the result of the wor@, independent 5o( &ontra&tin e6ists. 2he 5anitorial servi&e a ree'ent (etween E,PCIBan@ and MI is definitel" a &ase of per'issi(le 5o( &ontra&tin .

Considerin the fore oin , plus ta@in 5udi&ial noti&e of the eneral pra&ti&e in private, as well as in overn'ent institutions and industries, of hirin an independent &ontra&tor to perfor' spe&ial servi&es, 51 ran in fro' 5anitorial, se&urit" and even te&hni&al servi&es, we &an onl" &on&lude that MI is a le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor. )s su&h le iti'ate 5o( &ontra&tor, the law &reates an e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship (etween MI and petitioners5/ whi&h renders MI lia(le for the latter;s &lai's. In view of the pre&edin &on&lusions, petitioners will never (e&o'e re ular e'plo"ees of E,PCIBan@ re ardless of how lon the" were wor@in for the latter. 5. 7e further rule that petitioners were not ille all" dis'issed (" MI. ?pon the ter'ination of the Contra&t of Servi&e (etween MI and E,PCIBan@, petitioners &annot insist to &ontinue to wor@ for the latter. 2heir pull,out fro' E,PCIBan@ did not &onstitute ille al dis'issal sin&e, first, petitioners were not e'plo"ees of E,PCIBan@L and second, the" were pulled out fro' said assi n'ent due to the non,renewal of the Contra&t of Servi&e (etween MI and E,PCIBan@. )t the ti'e the" filed their &o'plaints with the =a(or )r(iter, petitioners were not even dis'issed (" MIL the" were onl" >off,detail> pendin their re,assi n'ent (" MI to another &lient. )nd when the" were a&tuall" iven new assi n'ents (" MI with other &lients, 5% petitioners even refused the sa'e. )s the N=RC pronoun&ed, petitioners; &o'plaint for ille al dis'issal is apparentl" pre'ature. '(EREFORE, pre'ises &onsidered, the Petition is !ENIE! for la&@ of 'erit. 2he De&ision dated #4 )pril #331 and Resolution dated 0$ O&to(er #331 of the Court of )ppeals are AFFIRME!. Costs a ainst petitioners. G.R. No. 14)372 "1#* 27, 2005

CLARION PRINTING (OUSE, INC., a#$ EULOGIO <UTINGCO, petitioners, vs. T(E (ONORA%LE NATIONAL LA%OR RELATIONS COMMISSION 7Th/r$ !/@/9/o#8 a#$ MIC(ELLE MICLAT,respondents. DECISION CARPIO-MORALES, J.: Respondent !i&helle !i&lat *!i&lat+ was e'plo"ed on )pril #$, $%%/ on a pro(ationar" (asis as 'ar@etin assistant with a 'onthl" salar" of P1,533.33 (" petitioner Clarion Printin Mouse *C=)RION+ owned (" its &o, petitioner Eulo io Iutin &o. )t the ti'e of her e'plo"'ent, she was not infor'ed of the standards that would Aualif" her as a re ular e'plo"ee. On Septe'(er $1, $%%/, the EICO -roup of Co'panies of whi&h C=)RION for'ed part filed with the Se&urities and E6&han e Co''ission *SEC+ a >Petition for the De&laration of Suspension of Pa"'ent, :or'ation and )ppoint'ent of Reha(ilitation Re&eiverH Co''ittee, )pproval of Reha(ilitation Plan with )lternative Pra"er for =iAuidation and Dissolution of Corporation> $ the pertinent alle ations of whi&h read9 666 5. 2he situation was that sin&e all these &o'panies were sister &o'panies and were operatin under a unified and &entraliFed 'ana e'ent tea', the finan&ial reAuire'ents of one &o'pan" would nor'all" (e (a&@ed up or supported (" one of the availa(le fundin s fro' the other &o'panies. 1. 2he e6pansion e6hausted the &ash availa(ilit" of Ni@on, NGI, and #333 (e&ause those fundin s were a(sor(ed (" the reAuire'ents of NPI and EICO Properties, In&. whi&h were pla&ed on real estate invest'ents. Mowever, at the ti'e that those invest'ents and e6pansions were 'ade, there was no &ause for alar' (e&ause the 'ar@et situation was ver" (ri ht and ver" pro'isin , hen&e, the de&ision of the 'ana e'ent to i'ple'ent the e6pansion.

/. 2he situation resulted in the &ash position (ein spread thin. Mowever, despite the thin &ash positionin , the 'ana e'ent still was ver" positive and saw a ver" via(le proposition sin&e the e6pansion and the additional invest'ents would result in a (i er real estate (ase whi&h would (e ver" &redi(le &ollateral for further e6pansions. It was envisioned that in the end, there would (e (i er &ash pro&ure'ent whi&h would result in reater volu'e of produ&tion, profita(ilit" and other ood results (ased on the e6pe&tations and pro5e&tions of the tea' itself. .. ?nfortunatel", fa&tors (e"ond the &ontrol and anti&ipation of the 'ana e'ent &a'e into pla" whi&h &au ht the petitioners flat,footed, su&h as9 a+ 2he A;12 /# 2h* r*a; *92a2* +arB*2 whi&h has resulted in the (u((le e&ono'" for the real estate de'and whi&h ri ht now has resulted in a severe slow down in the sales of propertiesL (+ Th* *co#o+/c /#2*r:;a6 co#9/92/#A o3 2h* /#3;a2/o# a#$ 2h* *rra2/c cha#A*9 /# 2h* :*9 o-$o;;ar *Ccha#A* ra2* whi&h pre&ipitated a soarin (an@in interest. &+ La,or :ro,;*+9 that has pre&ipitated adverse &o'pan" effe&t on the 'edia and in the finan&ial &ir&uit. d+ L/,*ra;/0a2/o# o3 2h* /#$192r6 *GATT+ whi&h has resulted in floodin the 'ar@et with i'ported oodsL e+ Other related adverse 'atters. %. 2he ina(ilit" of the EICO -roup of Co'panies to 'eet the o(li ations as the" fall due on the s&hedule a reed with the (an@ has now (e&o'e a star@ realit". 2he situation therefore is that sin&e the o(li ations would not (e 'et within the s&heduled due date, &o'pli&ations and pro(le's would definitel" arise that would i'pair and a33*c2 2h* o:*ra2/o#9 of the entire &on lo'erate &o'prisin the EICO -roup of Co'panies. 666 $#. B" virtue of this develop'ent, there is a need for suspension of all a&&ounts oCrD o(li ations in&urred (" the petitioners in their separate and &o'(ined &apa&ities in the 'eanti'e that the" are wor@in for the reha(ilitation of the &o'panies that would eventuall" redound to the (enefit of these &reditors. $0. 2he fore oin notwithstandin , however, the present &o'(ined finan&ial &ondition of the petitioners &learl" indi&ates that their assets are 'ore than enou h to pa" off the &redits. 6 6 6 *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+# On Septe'(er $%, $%%/, the SEC issued an Order 0 the pertinent portions of whi&h read9 666 It appearin that the petition is suffi&ient in for' and su(stan&e, the &orporate petitioners; pra"er for the &reationof 'ana e'ent or re&eivership &o''ittee and &red itors; approval of the proposed Reha(ilitation Plan is here("set for hearin on O&to(er ##, $%%/ at #933 o;&lo&@ in the afternoon at the SICD, SEC Bld ., EDS), -reenhills, !andalu"on Cit". 666

:inall", the petitioners are here(" en5oined fro' disposin an" and all of their properties in an" 'anner, whatsoever, e6&ept in the ordinar" &ourse of (usiness and fro' 'a@in an" pa"'ent outside of the le iti'ate (usiness e6penses durin the penden&" of the pro&eedin s and as a &onseAuen&e of the filin of the Petition, all a&tions, &lai's and pro&eedin s a ainst herein petitioners pendin (efore an" &ourt, tri(unal, offi&e (oard andHor &o''ission are dee'ed S?SPENDED until further orders fro' this Mearin Panel pursuant to the rulin s of the Supre'e Court in the &ases of RCBC v. I)C et al., #$0 SCR) .03 and BPI v. C), ##% SCR) ##0. *?nders&orin supplied+ )nd on Septe'(er 03, $%%/, the SEC issued an Order 4 approvin the &reation of an interi' re&eiver for the EICO -roup of Co'panies. On O&to(er $3, $%%/, the EICO -roup of Co'panies issued to its e'plo"ees the followin !e'orandu'9 5 2his is to for'all" announ&e the entr" of the Interi' Re&eiver -roup represented (" S-< fro' toda" until O&to(er ##, $%%/ or until further for'al noti&e fro' the SEC. 2his interi' re&eiver roup;s fun&tion is to 'a@e sure that all assets of the &o'pan" are se&ured and a&&ounted for (oth for the prote&tion of us and our &reditors. 2heir fun&tion will involve fa'iliariFation with the different pro&esses and &ontrols in our or aniFation O @eepin ph"si&al tra&@ of our assets li@e inventories and 'a&hineries. )n"thin that would (e reAuired fro' "ou would need to (e in writin and dul" approved (" the top 'ana e'ent in order for us to 'aintain a &lear line. 7e trust that this te'porar" in&onvenien&e will (enefit all of us in the spirit of oodwill. =et;s e6tend our full &ooperation to the'. 2han@ "ou. *?nders&orin supplied+ On O&to(er ##, $%%/, the )ssistant Personnel !ana er of C=)RION infor'ed !i&lat (" telephone that her e'plo"'ent &ontra&t had (een ter'inated effe&tive O&to(er #0, $%%/. No reason was iven for the ter'ination. 2he followin da" or on O&to(er #0, $%%/, on reportin for wor@, !i&lat was infor'ed (" the -eneral Sales !ana er that her ter'ination was part of C=)RION;s &ost,&uttin 'easures. On Nove'(er $/, $%%/, !i&lat filed a &o'plaint 1 for ille al dis'issal a ainst C=)RION and Iutin &o *petitioners+ (efore the National =a(or Relations Co''ission *N=RC+. In the 'eanti'e, or on 4anuar" /, $%%., the EICO -roup of Co'panies issued a !e'orandu' / addressed to &o'pan" 'ana ers advisin the' of >a te'porar" partial shutdown of so'e operations of the Co'pan"> &o''en&in on 4anuar" $#, $%%. up to :e(ruar" #., $%%.9 In view of the nu'erous e6ternal fa&tors su&h as slowdown in (usiness and &onsu'er de'and and &onsistent with )rt. #.1 of the Revised =a(or Code of the Philippines, we are &onstrained to o on a te'porar" partial shutdown of so'e operations of the Co'pan". 2o i'ple'ent this 'easure, please su('it to '" offi&e throu h "our lo&al MR)D the list of those who' "ou will reAuire to report for wor@ and their spe&ifi& s&hedules. ?pon revalidation and approval of this list, all those not in the list will not re&eive an" pa" nor will it (e &redited a ainst their <=. Please su('it the listin no later than the 'ornin of :rida", 4anuar" 3%, $%%..

Shutdown shall &o''en&e on 4anuar" $#, $%%. up to :e(ruar" #., $%%., unless otherwise re&alled at an earlier date. I'ple'entation of thCeseD dire&tives will (e done throu h "our MR)D depart'ents. *?nders&orin supplied+ In her Position Paper. dated !ar&h 0, $%%. filed (efore the la(or ar(iter, !i&lat &lai'ed that she was never infor'ed of the standards whi&h would Aualif" her as a re ular e'plo"ee. She asserted, however, that she Aualified as a re ular e'plo"ee sin&e her i''ediate supervisor even su('itted a written re&o''endation in her favor (efore she was ter'inated without 5ust or authoriFed &ause. Respe&tin the alle ed finan&ial losses &ited (" petitioners as (asis for her ter'ination, !i&lat disputed the sa'e, she &ontendin that as 'ar@etin assistant tas@ed to re&eive sales &alls, produ&e sales reports and &ondu&t 'ar@et surve"s, a &redi(le assess'ent on produ&tion and sales showed otherwise. In an" event, !i&lat &lai'ed that assu'in that her ter'ination was ne&essar", the 'anner in whi&h it was &arried out was ille al, no written noti&e thereof havin (een served on her, and she 'erel" learned of it onl" a da" (efore it (e&a'e effe&tive. )dditionall", !i&lat &lai'ed that she did not re&eive separation pa", $0th 'onth pa" and salaries for O&to(er #$, ## and #0, $%%/. On the other hand, petitioners &lai'ed that the" &ould not (e faulted for retren&hin so'e of its e'plo"ees in&ludin !i&lat, the" drawin attention to the EICO -roup of Co'panies; (ein pla&ed under re&eivership, noti&e of whi&h was sent to its supervisors and ran@ and file e'plo"ees via a !e'orandu' of 4ul" #$, $%%/L that in the sa'e 'e'orandu', the EICO -roup of Co'panies advised the' of a s&he'e for voluntar" separation fro' e'plo"'ent with pa"'ent of severan&e pa"L and that C=)RION was onl" adoptin the >=)S2 IN, :IRS2 O?2 PRINCIP=E> when it ter'inated !i&lat who was relativel" new in the &o'pan". Contendin that !i&lat;s ter'ination was 'ade with due pro&ess, petitioners referred to the EICO -roup of Co'panies; a(ovesaid 4ul" #$, $%%/ !e'orandu' whi&h, so the" &lai'ed, su(stantiall" &o'plied with the noti&e reAuire'ent, it havin (een issued 'ore than one 'onth (efore !i&lat was ter'inated on O&to(er #0, $%%/. B" De&ision% of Nove'(er #0, $%%., the la(or ar(iter found that !i&lat was ille all" dis'issed and dire&ted her reinstate'ent. 2he dispositive portion of the de&ision reads9 7MERE:ORE, in view of the fore oin pre'ises, 5ud 'ent is here(" rendered orderin the respondent tor*/#92a2* &o'plainant to her for'er or eAuivalent position without loss of seniorit" ri hts and (enefits and to :a6her (a&@wa es, fro' the ti'e of dis'issal to a&tual reinstate'ent, proportionate $0th 'onth pa" and two *#+ da"ssalar" &o'puted as follows9 a.$+ Ba&@wa es J $3H#0H%/ to $$H03H%. P1,533.33 6 $0.#5 'onths W P.1,$#5.33 a.#+ Proportionate $0th 'onth pa" $H$# of P.1,$#5 W /,$//.3. (+ $0th 'onth pa" , $%%/ WP1,533 6 %./5 'onthsH$# W 5,#.$.#5

&+ 2wo da"s salar" WP1,533H#1 6 # da"s W 533.33 2O2)= P %%,3.0.00 *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+. Before the National =a(or Relations Co''ission *N=RC+ to whi&h petitioners appealed, the" ar ued that9 $3 $. CC=)RIOND was pla&ed under re&eivership there(" eviden&in the fa&t that it sustained (usiness losses to warrant the ter'ination of C!i&latD fro' her e'plo"'ent. #. 2he dis'issal of C!i&latD fro' her e'plo"'ent havin (een effe&ted in a&&ordan&e with the law and in ood faith, C!i&latD does not deserve to (e reinstated and paid (a&@wa es, $0th 'onth pa" and two *#+ da"s salar". )nd petitioners pointed out that C=)RION had e6pressed its de&ision to shutdown its operations (" !e'orandu'$$ of 4anuar" /, $%%. to its &o'pan" 'ana ers. )ppended to petitioners; appeal (efore the N=RC were photo&opies of their (alan&e sheets fro' $%%/ to Nove'(er $%%. whi&h the" &lai'ed to >unani'ousl" show that 6 6 6 CpetitionerD &o'pan" e6perien&ed (usiness reverses whi&h were 'ade the (asis 6 6 6 in retren&hin 6 6 6.> $# B" Resolution$0 of 4une $/, $%%%, the N=RC affir'ed the la(or ar(iter;s de&ision. 2he pertinent portion of the N=RC Resolution reads9 2here are three *0+ valid reAuisites for valid retren&h'ent9 *$+ the retren&h'ent is ne&essar" to prevent losses and su&h losses are provenL *#+ written noti&es to the e'plo"ees and to the Depart'ent of =a(or and E'plo"'ent at least one *$+ 'onth prior to the intended date of retren&h'entL and *0+ pa"'ent of separation pa" eAuivalent to one *$+ 'onth pa" or at least X 'onth pa" for ever" "ear of servi&e, whi&hever is hi her. 2he two noti&es are 'andator". If the noti&e to the wor@ers is later than the noti&es sent to DO=E, the date of ter'ination should (e at least one 'onth fro' the date of noti&e to the wor@ers. In =opeF Su ar Corporation v. :ederation of :ree 7or@ers Philippine =a(or ?nion )sso&iation *P=?), N)C?SIP+ and National =a(or Relations Co''ission, the Supre'e Court had the o&&asion to set forth four standards whi&h would 5ustif" retren&h'ent, (ein , firstl", , the losses e6pe&ted should (e su(stantial and not 'erel" de 'ini'is in e6tent. If the loss purportedl" sou ht to (e forestalled (" retren&h'ent is &learl" shown to (e insu(stantial and in&onseAuential in &hara&ter, the (ona fide nature of the retren&h'ent would appear to (e seriousl" in AuestionL se&ondl", , the su(stantial loss apprehended 'ust (e reasona(l" i''inent, as su&h i''inen&e &an (e per&eived o(5e&tivel" and in ood faith (" the e'plo"er. 2here should, in other words, (e a &ertain de ree of ur en&" for the retren&h'ent, whi&h is after all a drasti& &ourse with serious &onseAuen&es for the livelihood of the e'plo"ees retired or otherwise laid,offL thirdl", , (e&ause of the &onseAuential nature of retren&h'ent, it 'ust (e reasona(l" ne&essar" and li@el" to effe&tivel" prevent the e6pe&ted losses. 2he e'plo"er should have ta@en other 'easures prior or parallel to retren&h'ent to forestall losses, i.e., &ut other &ost than la(or &ostsL and lastl", , the alle ed losses if alread" realiFed and the e6pe&ted i''inent losses sou ht to (e forestalled, 'ust (e proven (" suffi&ient and &onvin&in eviden&e. 2he re&ords show that these reAuire'ents were not su(stantiall" &o'plied with. )nd proofs presented (" respondents,appellants were short of (ein suffi&ient and &onvin&in to 5ustif" valid retren&h'ent. 2heir position 'ust therefore fail. 2he reason is si'ple. Eviden&es on re&ord presented fall short of the reAuire'ent of su(stantial, suffi&ient and &onvin&in eviden&e to persuade this Co''ission to de&lare the validit" of retren&h'ent espoused (" respondents,appellants. 2he petition (efore the Se&uritCiesD and E6&han e Co''ission for suspension of pa"'ent does not prove an"thin to &o'e within the (ounds of 5ustif"in

retren&h'ent. In fa&t, the petition itself lends &reden&e to the fa&t that retren&h'ent was not a&tuall" reinstated under the &ir&u'stan&es prevailin when it stated, >!*e foregoing not#it*standing, *o#ever, t*e present combined financial condition of t*e petitioners clearly indicates t*at t*eir assets are more t*an enoug* to pay off t*e credits.> <eril", readin further into the petition, 7e are not read" to disre ard the fa&t that the petition 'erel" see@s to suspend pa"'ents of their o(li ation fro' &reditor (an@s and other finan&in institutions, and not (e&ause of i''inent su(stantial finan&ial loss. On this a&&ount, 7e ta@e note of para raph / of the petition whi&h stated9 >!*e situation resulted in cas* position being spread t*in. )o#ever, despite t*e t*in cas* positioning, t*e management #as very positive and sa# a very viable proposition since t*e e,pansion and t*e additional investments #ould result in a bigger real estate base #*ic* #ould be a very credible collateral for furt*er e,pansions. 8t #as envisioned t*at in t*e end, t*ere #ould a bigger cas* procurement #*ic* #ould result in greater volume of production, profitability and ot*er good results based on t*e e,pectations and projections of t*e team itself.> )d'ittedl", this does not &reate a pi&ture of retren&ha(le (usiness at'osphere pursuant to )rti&le #.0 of the =a(or Code. 7e &annot disre ard the fa&t that respondent,appellants failed in al'ost all of the &riteria set (" law and 5urispruden&e in 5ustif"in valid retren&h'ent. 2he two *#+ 'andator" noti&es were violated. 2he supposed noti&e to the DO=E *)nne6 >4,> =ist of E'plo"ees on Shutdown+ is of no 'o'ent, the sa'e havin no (earin in this &ase. Merein &o'plainant,appellee was not even listed therein and the date of re&eipt (" DO=E, that is, 4anuar" $., $%%%, was wa" out of ti'e in relation to this &ase. )nd no proof was addu&ed to eviden&e &ost &uttin 'easures, to sa" the least. Nor was there proof shown that separation pa" had (een awarded to &o'plainant,appellee. 7MERE:ORE, pre'ises &onsidered, and findin no rave a(use of dis&retion on the findin s of =a(or )r(iter Nieves <. De Castro, the appeal is DENIED for la&@ of 'erit. 2he de&ision appealed fro' is )::IR!ED in toto. *Itali&s in the ori inalL unders&orin suppliedL &itations o'itted+ Petitioners; !otion for Re&onsideration of the N=RC resolution havin (een denied (" Resolution $4 of 4ul" #%, $%%%, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari$5 (efore the Court of )ppeals *C)+ raisin the followin ar u'ents9 $. PE2I2IONER C=)RION 7)S P=)CED ?NDER RECEI<ERSMIP 2MEREBI E<IDENCIN- 2ME :)C2 2M)2 I2 S?S2)INED B?SINESS =OSSES 2O 7)RR)N2 2ME 2ER!IN)2ION O: PRI<)2E RESPONDEN2 !IC=)2 :RO! MER E!P=OI!EN2. #. 2ME DIS!ISS)= O: PRI<)2E RESPONDEN2 !IC=)2 :RO! MER E!P=OI!EN2 M)<INBEENE::EC2ED IN )CCORD)NCE 7I2M 2ME =)7 )ND IN -OOD :)I2M, PRI<)2E RESPONDEN2 DOES NO2 DESER<E 2O BE REINS2)2ED )ND P)ID B)CG7)-ES, $0th !ON2M P)I )ND 27O *#+ D)IS S)=)RI. *?nders&orin supplied+ B" De&ision$1 of Nove'(er #4, #333, the C) sustained the resolutions of the N=RC in this wise9 In the instant &ase, Clarion 3a/;*$ 2o :ro@* its round for retren&h'ent as well as &o'plian&e with the 'andated pro&edure of furnishin the e'plo"ee and the Depart'ent of =a(or and E'plo"'ent *hereafter, DO=E+ with one *$+ 'onth written noti&e and pa"'ent of separation pa" to the e'plo"ee. Clarion;s failure to dis&har e its (urden of proof is evident fro' the followin instan&es9 :irst, Clarion presented no eviden&e whatsoever (efore the =a(or )r(iter. 2o prove serious (usiness losses, Clarion presented its $%%/ and $%%. finan&ial state'ents and the SEC Order for the Creation of an Interi' Re&eiver, for the 3/r92 2/+* o# a::*a; ,*3or* 2h* NLRC. 2he Supre'e Court has &onsistentl" disallowed su&h pra&ti&e unless the part" 'a@in the (elated su('ission of eviden&e had satisfa&toril" e6plained the dela". In the instant &ase, said finan&ial state'ents are not ad'issi(le in eviden&e due to Clarion;s failure to e6plain the dela". Se&ond, even if su&h finan&ial state'ents were ad'itted in eviden&e, the" would not alter the out&o'e of the &ase as state'ents have wea@ pro(ative value. 2he reAuired 'ethod of proof in su&h &ase is

the presentation of finan&ial state'ents prepared (" independent auditors and not 'erel" (" &o'pan" a&&ountants. ) ain, petitioner failed in this re ard. 2hird, even audited finan&ial state'ents are not enou h. 2he e'plo"er 'ust present the state'ent for the "ear i''ediatel" pre&edin the "ear the e'plo"ee was retren&hed, whi&h Clarion failed to do in the instant &ase, to prove not onl" the fa&t of (usiness losses (ut 'ore i'portantl", the fa&t that su&h losses were su(stantial, &ontinuin and without i''ediate prospe&t of a(ate'ent. Men&e, neither the N=RC nor the &ourts 'ust (lindl" a&&ept su&h audited finan&ial state'ents. 2he" 'ust e6a'ine and 'a@e inferen&es fro' the data presented to esta(lish (usiness losses. :urther'ore, the" 'ust (e &autioned (" the fa&t that>slidin in&o'es> or de&reasin ross revenues alone are not ne&essaril" (usiness losses within the 'eanin of )rt. #.0 sin&e in the nature of thin s, the possi(ilit" of in&urrin losses is &onstantl" present in (usiness operations. =ast, even if (usiness losses were indeed suffi&ientl" proven, the e'plo"er 'ust still prove that retren&h'ent was resorted to onl" after less drasti& 'easures su&h as the redu&tion of (oth 'ana e'ent and ran@,and,file (onuses and salaries, oin on redu&ed ti'e, i'provin 'anufa&turin effi&ien&", redu&tion of 'ar@etin and advertisin &osts, faster &olle&tion of &usto'er a&&ounts, redu&tion of raw 'aterials invest'ent and others, have (een tried and found wantin . ) ain, petitioner failed to prove the e6haustion of less drasti& 'easures short of retren&h'ent as it had failed with the other reAuisites. It is interestin to note that !i&lat started as a pro(ationar" e'plo"ee on #$ )pril $%%/. 2here (ein no stipulation to the &ontrar", her pro(ation period had a duration of si6 *1+ 'onths fro' her date of e'plo"'ent. 2hus, after the end of the pro(ation period on ## O&to(er $%%/, she (e&a'e a re ular e'plo"ee as of #0 O&to(er $%%/ sin&e she was allowed to wor@ after the end of said period. It is also &lear that her pro(ationar" e'plo"'ent was not ter'inated at the end of the pro(ation period on the round that the e'plo"ee failed to Aualif" in a&&ordan&e with reasona(le standards 'ade @nown to her at the ti'e of en a e'ent. Mowever, #0 O&to(er $%%/ was also the da" of !i&lat;s ter'ination fro' e'plo"'ent on the round of retren&h'ent. 2hus, we have a (iFarre situation when the first da" of an e'plo"ee;s re ular e'plo"'ent was also the da" of her ter'ination. Mowever, this is entirel" possi(le, as had in fa&t happened in the instant &ase, where the e'plo"er;s (asis for ter'ination is )rt. #.., instead of )rt. #.$ of the =a(or Code. If petitioner ter'inated !i&lat with )rt. #.$ in 'ind, it would have (een too late to present su&h theor" at this sta e and it would have (een eAuall" devastatin for petitioner had it done so (e&ause no eviden&e e6ists to show that !i&lat failed to Aualif" with petitioner;s standards for re ulariFation. :ailure to dis&har e its (urden of proof would still (e petitioner;s undoin . 7hi&hever wa" 7e e6a'ine the &ase, the &on&lusion is the sa'e J !i&lat was ille all" dis'issed. ConseAuentl", reinstate'ent without loss of seniorit" ri hts and full (a&@wa es fro' date of dis'issal on #0 O&to(er $%%/ until a&tual reinstate'ent is in order. 7MERE:ORE, the instant petition is here(" DIS!ISSED and the #% 4ul" $%%% and / 4une $%%% resolutions of the N=RC are S?S2)INED. *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+ B" Resolution$/ of !a" #0, #33$, the C) denied petitioner;s 'otion for re&onsideration of the de&ision. Men&e, the present petition for review on certiorari, petitioners &ontendin that9 7I2M )== D?E RESPEC2, 2ME MONOR)B=E CO?R2 O: )PPE)=S -R)<E=I ERRED IN S?S2)ININ2ME )SS)I=ED DECISIONS O: MONOR)B=E P?B=IC RESPONDEN2 CO!!ISSION9 ). MO=DIN- 2M)2 PRI<)2E RESPONDEN2 !IC=)2 7)S I==E-)==I DIS!ISSEDL and B. ORDERIN- 2ME REINS2)2E!EN2 O: PRI<)2E RESPONDEN2 !IC=)2 2O MER :OR!ER OR E8?I<)=EN2 POSI2ION 7I2MO?2 =OSS O: SENIORI2I RI-M2S )ND

BENE:I2S )ND P)I!EN2 O: B)CG7)-ES, $C0Dth !ON2M P)I )ND 27O *#+ D)IS S)=)RI. $. Petitioners ar ue that the &on&lusion of the C) that no suffi&ient proof of finan&ial losses on the part of C=)RION was addu&ed is patentl" erroneous, iven the serious (usiness reverses it had ravel" suffered as refle&ted in its finan&ial state'entsH(alan&e sheets, there(" leavin as its onl" option the retren&h'ent of its e'plo"ees in&ludin !i&lat.$% Petitioners further ar ue that when a &o'pan" is under re&eivership and a re&eiver is appointed to ta@e &ontrol of its 'ana e'ent and &orporate affairs, one of the evident reasons is to prevent further losses of said &o'pan" and prote&t its re'ainin assets fro' (ein dissipatedL and that the su('ission of finan&ial reportsHstate'ents prepared (" independent auditors had (een rendered 'oot and a&ade'i&, the &o'pan" havin shutdown its operations and havin (een pla&ed under re&eivership (" the SEC due to its ina(ilit" to pa" or &o'pl" with its o(li ations.#3 Respe&tin the C);s holdin that the finan&ial state'ents C=)RION su('itted for the first ti'e on appeal (efore the N=RC are inad'issi(le in eviden&e due to its failure to e6plain the dela" in the su('ission thereof, petitioners la'ent the C);s failure to &onsider that te&hni&al rules on eviden&e prevailin in the &ourts are not &ontrollin in pro&eedin s (efore the N=RC whi&h 'a" &onsider eviden&e su&h as do&u'ents and affidavits su('itted (" the parties for the first ti'e on appeal. #$ )s to the C);s holdin that C=)RION failed to prove the e6haustion of less drasti& 'easures short of retren&hin , petitioners advan&e that prior to the ter'ination of !i&lat, C=)RION, to ether with the other &o'panies under the EICO -roup of Co'panies, was pla&ed under re&eivership durin whi&h drasti& 'easures to &ontinue (usiness operations of the &o'pan" and eventuall" reha(ilitate itself were i'ple'ented.## Den"in !i&lat;s entitle'ent to (a&@wa es, petitioners proffer that her dis'issal rested upon a valid and authoriFed &ause. )nd petitioners assail as rossl" erroneous the award of $0th 'onth pa" to !i&lat, she not havin sou ht it and, therefore, there was no 5urisdi&tion to award the sa'e. #0 2he petition is partl" 'eritorious. Contrar" to the C);s rulin , petitioners &ould present eviden&e for the first ti'e on appeal to the N=RC. It is well,settled that the N=RC is not pre&luded fro' re&eivin eviden&e, even for the first ti'e on appeal, (e&ause te&hni&al rules of pro&edure are not (indin in la(or &ases. 2he settled rule is that the N=RC is not pre&luded fro' re&eivin eviden&e on appeal as te&hni&al rules of eviden&e are not (indin in la(or &ases. In fa&t, la(or offi&ials are 'andated (" the =a(or Code to use ever" andall reasonable means to ascertain t*e facts in eac* case speedil" and o(5e&tivel", without re ard to te&hni&alities of law or pro&edure, all in the interest of due pro&ess. 2hus, in "a#in Security Services v. 4"$C, and Bristol "aboratories Employees9 Association&:FA v. 4"$C , we held that even if the eviden&e was not su('itted to the la(or ar(iter, the fa&t that it was dul" introdu&ed on appeal to the N=RC is enou h (asis for the latter to (e 'ore 5udi&ious in ad'ittin the sa'e, instead of fallin (a&@ on the 'ere te&hni&alit" that said eviden&e &an no lon er (e &onsidered on appeal. Certainl", the first &ourse of a&tion would (e 'ore &onsistent with eAuit" and the (asi& notions of fairness. *Itali&s in the ori inalL &itations o'itted+ #4 It is li@ewise well,settled that for retren&h'ent to (e 5ustified, an" &lai' of a&tual or potential (usiness losses 'ust satisf" the followin standards9 *$+ the losses are su(stantial and not de minimisL *#+ the losses are a&tual or reasona(l" i''inentL *0+ the retren&h'ent is reasona(l" ne&essar" and is li@el" to (e effe&tive in preventin e6pe&ted lossesL and *4+ the alle ed losses, if alread" in&urred, or the e6pe&ted i''inent losses sou ht to (e forestalled, are proven (" suffi&ient and &onvin&in eviden&e.#5 )nd it is the e'plo"er who has the onus of provin the presen&e of these standards.

Se&tions 5 and 1 of Presidential De&ree No. %3#,) *P.D. %3#,)+ *>reor aniFation of the se&urities and e6&han e &o''ission with additional powers and pla&in said a en&" under the ad'inistrative supervision of the offi&e of the president>+,#1 as a'ended, read9 SEC. 5 In addition to the re ulator" and ad5udi&ative fun&tions of 2ME SEC?RI2IES )ND EUCM)N-E CO!!ISSION over &orporations, partnerships and other for's of asso&iations re istered with it as e6pressl" ranted under e6istin laws and de&rees, it shall have ori inal and e6&lusive 5urisdi&tion to hear and de&ide &ases involvin 9 666 *d+ P*2/2/o#9 o3 cor:ora2/o#9, :ar2#*r9h/:9 or a99oc/a2/o#9 $*c;ar*$ /# 2h* 92a2* o3 919:*#9/o# o3 :a6+*#29 /# ca9*9 5h*r* 2h* cor:ora2/o#, :ar2#*r9h/: or a99oc/a2/o# :o99*99*9 9133/c/*#2 :ro:*r26 2o co@*r a;; $*,29 ,12 3or*9**9 2h* /+:o99/,/;/26 o3 +**2/#A 2h*+ 5h*# 2h*6 r*9:*c2/@*;6 3a;; $1* or /# ca9*9 5h*r* 2h* cor:ora2/o#, :ar2#*r9h/:, a99oc/a2/o# ha9 #o 9133/c/*#2 a99*29 2o co@*r /29 ;/a,/;/2/*9, ,12 /9 1#$*r 2h* +a#aA*+*#2 o3 a R*ha,/;/2a2/o# R*c*/@*r or Ma#aA*+*#2 Co++/22** cr*a2*$ :1r91a#2 2o 2h/9 !*cr**. SEC. 1. In order to effe&tivel" e6er&ise su&h 5urisdi&tion, the Co''ission shall possess the followin powers9 666 *&+ To a::o/#2 o#* or +or* r*c*/@*r9 of the propert", real and personal, whi&h is the su(5e&t of the a&tion pendin (efore the Co''ission in a&&ordan&e with the provisions of the Rules of Court in su&h other &ases whenever ne&essar" in order to preserve the ri hts of the parties,liti ants andHor :ro2*c2 2h* /#2*r*92 o3 2h* /#@*92/#A :1,;/c a#$ cr*$/2or9& Pro@/$*$, ho5*@*r, Tha2 2h* Co++/99/o# +a6 /# a::ro:r/a2* ca9*9, a::o/#2 a r*ha,/;/2a2/o# r*c*/@*r o3 cor:ora2/o#9, :ar2#*r9h/:9 or o2h*r a99oc/a2/o#9 #o2 91:*r@/9*$ or r*A1;a2*$ ,6 o2h*r Ao@*r#+*#2 aA*#c/*9 5ho 9ha;; ha@*, /# a$$/2/o# 2o :o5*r9 o3 2h* r*A1;ar r*c*/@*r 1#$*r 2h* :ro@/9/o#9 o3 2h* R1;*9 o3 Co1r2, 91ch 31#c2/o#9 a#$ :o5*r9 a9 ar* :ro@/$*$ 3or /# 2h* 91cc**$/#A :araAra:h 7$8 h*r*o3& 6 6 6 *d+ 2o &reate and appoint a 'ana e'ent &o''ittee, (oard or (od" upon petition or 'otu propio to underta@e the 'ana e'ent of &orporations, partnership or other asso&iations not supervised or re ulated (" other overn'ent a en&ies in appropriate &ases 5h*# 2h*r* /9 /++/#*#2 $a#A*r o3 $/99/:a2/o#, ;o99, 5a92aA* or $*92r1c2/o# o3 a99*29 or o2h*r :ro:*r2/*9 or :ara;/0a2/o# o3 ,19/#*99 o:*ra2/o#9 o3 91ch cor:ora2/o#9 or *#2/2/*95h/ch +a6 ,* :r*D1$/c/a; 2o 2h* /#2*r*92 o3 +/#or/26 92ocBho;$*r9, :ar2/*9-;/2/Aa#29 o3 2h* A*#*ra; :1,;/c& 6 6 6 *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+. :ro' the a(ove,Auoted provisions of P.D. No. %3#,), as a'ended, the appoint'ent of a re&eiver or 'ana e'ent &o''ittee (" the SEC presupposes a findin that, inter alia, a &o'pan" possesses suffi&ient propert" to &over all its de(ts (ut >foresees the i'possi(ilit" of 'eetin the' when the" respe&tivel" fall due> and >there is i''inent dan er of dissipation, loss, wasta e or destru&tion of assets of other properties or paraliFation of (usiness operations.> 2hat the SEC, 'andated (" law to have re ulator" fun&tions over &orporations, partnerships or asso&iations,#/appointed an interim re&eiver for the EICO -roup of Co'panies on its petition in li ht of, as Auoted a(ove, the therein enu'erated >fa&tors (e"ond the &ontrol and anti&ipation of the 'ana e'ent> renderin it una(le to 'eet its o(li ation as the" fall due, and thus resultin to >&o'pli&ations and pro(le's . . . to arise that would i'pair and affe&t CitsD operations . . .> shows that C=)RION, to ether with the other 'e'(er, &o'panies of the EICO -roup of Co'panies, was sufferin (usiness reverses 5ustif"in , a'on other thin s, the retren&h'ent of its e'plo"ees. 2his Court in fa&t ta@es 5udi&ial noti&e of the De&ision #. of the Court of )ppeals dated 4une $$, #333 in C),-.R. SP No. 55#3., >4i>on 8ndustrial Corp., 4i>olite 8ndustrial Corp., et al. [including CLARION], ot*er#ise >no#n as t*e E(C; ?roup of Companies v. P*ilippine 4ational Ban>, Solidban> Corporation, et al., collectively >no#n and referred as t*e @Consortium of Creditor Ban>s ,9A whi&h was elevated to this Court via Petition

for Certiorari and do&@eted as G.R. No. 145977, (ut whi&h petition this Court dis'issed (" Resolution dated !a" 0, #3359 Considerin the 5oint 'anifestation and 'otion to dis'iss of petitioners and respondents dated :e(ruar" #4, #330, statin that the parties have rea&hed a final and &o'prehensive settle'ent of all the &lai's and &ounter&lai's su(5e&t 'atter of the &ase and a&&ordin l", a reed to the dis'issal of the petition for certiorari, the Court Resolved to DIS!ISS the petition for certiorari *?nders&orin supplied+. 2he parties in G.R. No. 145977 havin sou ht, and this Court havin ranted, the dis'issal of the appeal of the therein petitioners in&ludin C=)RION, the C) de&ision whi&h affir'ed in toto the Septe'(er $4, $%%% Order of the SEC, the dispositive portion of whi&h SEC Order reads9 7MERE:ORE, pre'ises &onsidered, the appeal is as it is here(", ranted and the Order dated $. De&e'(er $%%. is set aside. 2he Petition to (e De&lared in State of Suspension of pa"'ents is here(" $/9a::ro@*$ and the S)C Plan ter'inated. ConseAuentl", all &o''ittee, &onservatorH re&eivers &reated pursuant to said Order are dissolved and dis&har ed and all a&ts and orders issued therein are va&ated. Th* Co++/99/o#, ;/B*5/9*, or$*r9 2h* ;/G1/$a2/o# a#$ $/99o;12/o# o3 2h* a::*;;** cor:ora2/o#9. 2he &ase is here(" re'anded to the hearin panel (elow for that purpose. 6 6 6 *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+, has now (e&o'e final and e6e&utor". Ergo, the SEC;s disapproval of the EICO -roup of Co'panies; >Petition for the De&laration of Suspension of Pa"'ent . . .> and the order for the liAuidation and dissolution of these &o'panies in&ludin C=)RION, 'ust (e dee'ed to have (een unassailed. 2hat 5udi&ial noti&e &an (e ta@en of the a(ove,said &ase of 4i>on 8ndustrial Corp. et al. v. P4B et al., there should (e no dou(t. )s provided in Se&tion $, Rule $#% of the Rules of Court9 SEC2ION $. Budicial notice, #*en mandatory. J ) &ourt shall ta@e 5udi&ial noti&e, without the introdu&tion of eviden&e, of the e6isten&e and territorial e6tent of states, their politi&al histor", for's of overn'ent and s"'(ols of nationalit", the law of nations, the ad'iralt" and 'ariti'e &ourts of the world and their seals, the politi&al &onstitution and histor" of the Philippines, the o33/c/a; ac29 o3 2h* le islative, e6e&utive and D1$/c/a; depart'ents of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the 'easure of ti'e, and the eo raphi&al divisions. *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+ whi&h !r. 4usti&e Ed ardo =. Paras interpreted as follows9 A co1r2 5/;; 2aB* D1$/c/a; #o2/c* o3 its own a&ts and re&ords in the sa'e &ase, of fa&ts esta(lished in prior pro&eedin s in the sa'e &ase, of the authenti&it" of its own re&ords of another &ase (etween the sa'e parties, of the 3/;*9 o3 r*;a2*$ ca9*9 /# 2h* 9a+* co1r2, a#$ o3 :1,;/c r*cor$9 o# 3/;* /# 2h* 9a+* co1r2. In addition 5udi&ial noti&e will (e ta@en of the re&ord, pleadin s or 5ud 'ent of a &ase in another &ourt (etween the sa'e parties or involvin one of the sa'e parties, as well as of the re&ord of another &ase (etween different parties in the sa'e &ourt. 4udi&ial noti&e will also (e ta@en of &ourt personnel. *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+ #% In fine, C=)RION;s &lai' that at the ti'e it ter'inated !i&lat it was e6perien&in (usiness reverses ains 'ore li ht fro' the SEC;s disapproval of the EICO -roup of Co'panies; petition to (e de&lared in state of suspension of pa"'ent, 3/;*$ ,*3or* M/c;a2H9 2*r+/#a2/o#, and of the SEC;s &onseAuent order for the roup of &o'panies; dissolution and liAuidation. 2his Court;s findin that !i&lat;s ter'ination was 5ustified notwithstandin , sin&e at the ti'e she was hired on pro(ationar" (asis she was not infor'ed of the standards that would Aualif" her as a re ular e'plo"ee, under Se&tion 1, Rule I of the I'ple'entin Rules of Boo@ <I of the =a(or Code whi&h reads9

SEC. 1. Pro(ationar" e'plo"'ent. 2here is pro(ationar" e'plo"'ent where the e'plo"ee, upon his en a e'ent, is 'ade to under o a trial period durin whi&h the e'plo"er deter'ines his fitness to Aualif" for re ular e'plo"'ent, (ased on reasona(le standards 'ade @nown to hi' at the ti'e of en a e'ent. >Pro(ationar" e'plo"'ent shall (e overned (" the followin rules9 666 *d+ I# a;; ca9*9 o3 :ro,a2/o#ar6 *+:;o6+*#2, 2h* *+:;o6*r 9ha;; +aB* B#o5# 2o 2h* *+:;o6** 2h* 92a#$ar$9 1#$*r 5h/ch h* 5/;; G1a;/36 a9 a r*A1;ar *+:;o6** a2 2h* 2/+* o3 h/9 *#AaA*+*#2. 7here no standards are 'ade @nown to the e'plo"ee at that ti'e, he shall (e dee'ed a re ular e'plo"ee> *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+, she was dee'ed to have (een hired fro' da" one as a re ular e'plo"ee. 03 C=)RION, however, failed to &o'pl" with the noti&e reAuire'ent provided for in )rti&le #.0 of the =a(or Code, to wit9 )R2. #.0. C=OS?RE O: ES2)B=ISM!EN2 )ND RED?C2ION O: PERSONNE=. J 2he e'plo"er 'a" also ter'inate the e'plo"'ent of an" e'plo"ee due to the installation of la(or savin devi&es, redundan&",retren&h'ent to prevent losses or the &losin or &essation of operation of the esta(lish'ent or underta@in unless the &losin is for the purpose of &ir&u'ventin the provisions of this 2itle, ,6 9*r@/#A a 5r/22*# #o2/c* o# 2h* 5orB*r a#$ 2h* M/#/92r6 o3 La,or a#$ E+:;o6+*#2 a2 ;*a92 o#* 718 +o#2h ,*3or* 2h* /#2*#$*$ $a2* 2h*r*o3. 6 6 6 *E'phasis and unders&orin supplied+ 2his Court thus dee's it proper to award the a'ount eAuivalent to !i&lat;s one *$+ 'onth salar" of P1,533.33 as no'inal da'a es to deter e'plo"ers fro' future violations of the statutor" due pro&ess ri hts of e'plo"ees.0$ Sin&e )rti&le #.0 of the =a(or Code also provides that >CiDn &ase of retren&h'ent to prevent losses, . . . the separation pa" shall (e eAuivalent to one *$+ 'onth pa" or at least one,half *$H#+ 'onth pa" 3or *@*r6 6*ar o3 9*r@/c*, whi&hever is hi her. . . , CaD fra&tion of at least si6 *1+ 'onths C(ein D &onsidered one *$+ whole "ear,> this Court holds that !i&lat is entitled to separation pa" eAuivalent to one *$+ 'onth salar". )s to !i&lat;s entitle'ent to $0th 'onth pa", para raph 1 of the Revised -uidelines on the $0th !onth Pa" =aw provides9 1. $0th !onth Pa" of Resi ned or Separated E'plo"ee )n e'plo"ee 6 6 6 whose servi&es were ter'inated an" ti'e (efore the ti'e for pa"'ent of the $0th 'onth pa" is entitled to this 'onetar" (enefit in proportion to the len th of ti'e he wor@ed durin the &alendar "ear up to the ti'e of his resi nation or ter'ination fro' the servi&e. 2hus if he wor@ed onl" fro' 4anuar" up to Septe'(er his proportionate $0th 'onth pa" shall (e eAuivalent to $H$# of his total (asi& salar" he earned durin that period. 666 Mavin wor@ed at C=)RION for si6 'onths, !i&lat;s $0th 'onth pa" should (e &o'puted as follows9 *!onthl" Salar" 6 1 + H $# W Proportionate $0th 'onth pa" *P1,533.33 6 1+ H $# W P0,#53.33

7ith the appoint'ent of a 'ana e'ent re&eiver in Septe'(er $%%/, however, all &lai's and pro&eedin s a ainst C=)RION, in&ludin la(or &lai's, 0# were dee'ed suspended durin the e6isten&e of the re&eivership.00 2he la(or ar(iter, the N=RC, as well as the C) should not have pro&eeded to resolve respondent;s &o'plaint for ille al dis'issal and should instead have dire&ted respondent to lod e her &lai' (efore the then dul",appointed re&eiver of C=)RION. 2o still reAuire respondent, however, at this ti'e to refile her la(or &lai' a ainst C=)RION under the pe&uliar &ir&u'stan&es of the &ase R that . "ears have lapsed sin&e her ter'ination and that all the ar u'ents and defenses of (oth parties were alread" ventilated (efore the la(or ar(iter, N=RC and the C)L and that C=)RION is alread" in the &ourse of liAuidation R this Court dee's it 'ost e6pedient and advanta eous for (oth parties that C=)RION;s lia(ilit" (e deter'ined with finalit", instead of still reAuirin respondent to lod e her &lai' at this ti'e (efore the liAuidators of C=)RION whi&h would 5ust entail a 'ere reiteration of what has (een alread" ar ued and pleaded. :urther'ore, it would (e in the (est interest of the other &reditors of C=)RION that &lai's a ainst the &o'pan" (e finall" settled and deter'ined so as to further e6pedite the liAuidation pro&eedin s. :or the lesser nu'(er of &lai's to (e proved, the sooner the &lai's of all &reditors of C=)RION are pro&essed and settled. '(EREFORE, the Court of )ppeals Nove'(er #4, #333 De&ision, to ether with its !a" #0, #33$ Resolution, is SE2 )SIDE and another rendered de&larin the le alit" of the dis'issal of respondent, !i&helle !i&lat. Petitioners are ORDERED, however, to P)I her the followin in a&&ordan&e with the fore oin dis&ussions9 $+ P1,533.33 as no'inal da'a es for non,&o'plian&e with statutor" due pro&essL #+ P1,533.33 as separation pa"L and 0+ P0,#53.33 as $0th 'onth pa". =et a &op" of this De&ision (e furnished the SEC Mearin Panel &har ed with the liAuidation and dissolution of petitioner &orporation for in&lusion, in the list of &lai's of its &reditors, respondent !i&helle !i&lat;s &lai's, to (e satisfied in a&&ordan&e with )rti&le $$3 of the =a(or Code in relation to the Civil Code provisions on Con&urren&e and Preferen&e of Credits.

PRU!ENCIO %ANTOLINO, NESTOR ROMERO, NILO ESPINA, E!!IE LA!ICA, ARMAN EUELING, ROLAN!O NIETO, RICAR!O %ARTOLOME, ELU ER GARCIA, E!UAR!O GARCIA a#$ NELSON MANALASTAS, petitioners, vs. COCA-COLA %OTTLERS P(ILS., INC., respondent. !ECISION
%ELLOSILLO, J.&

2his is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailin the De&ision of the Court of )ppeals dated #$ De&e'(er #33$ whi&h affir'ed with 'odifi&ation the de&ision of the National =a(or Relations Co''ission pro'ul ated 03 !ar&h #33$.
C$D C#D

On $5 :e(ruar" $%%5 si6t",two *1#+ e'plo"ees of respondent Co&a,Cola Bottlers, In&., and its offi&ers, =iper&on Servi&es, In&., People;s Spe&ialist Servi&es, In&., and Interi' Servi&es, In&., filed a &o'plaint a ainst respondents for unfair la(or pra&ti&e throu h ille al dis'issal, violation of their se&urit" of tenure and the perpetuation of the YCa(o S"ste'.Z 2he" thus pra"ed for reinstate'ent with full (a&@ wa es, and the de&laration of their re ular e'plo"'ent status.

:or failure to prose&ute as the" failed to either attend the s&heduled 'andator" &onferen&es or su('it their respe&tive affidavits, the &lai's of fift",two *5#+ &o'plainant,e'plo"ees were dis'issed. 2hereafter, =a(or )r(iter 4ose De <era &ondu&ted &larifi&ator" hearin s to eli&it infor'ation fro' the ten *$3+ re'ainin &o'plainants *petitioners herein+ relative to their alle ed e'plo"'ent with respondent fir'. In su(stan&e, the &o'plainants averred that in the perfor'an&e of their duties as route helpers, (ottle se re ators, and others, the" were e'plo"ees of respondent Co&a,Cola Bottlers, In&. 2he" further 'aintained that when respondent &o'pan" repla&ed the' and prevented the' fro' enterin the &o'pan" pre'ises, the" were dee'ed to have (een ille all" dis'issed. In lieu of a position paper, respondent &o'pan" filed a 'otion to dis'iss &o'plaint for la&@ of 5urisdi&tion and &ause of a&tion, there (ein no e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship (etween &o'plainants and Co&a,Cola Bottlers, In&., and that respondents =iper&on Servi&es, People;s Spe&ialist Servi&es and Interi' Servi&es (ein bona fide independent &ontra&tors, were the real e'plo"ers of the &o'plainants. )s re ards the &orporate offi&ers, respondent insisted that the" &ould not (e faulted and (e held lia(le for da'a es as the" onl" a&ted in their offi&ial &apa&ities while perfor'in their respe&tive duties.
C0D

On #% !a" $%%. =a(or )r(iter 4ose De <era rendered a de&ision orderin respondent &o'pan" to reinstate &o'plainants to their for'er positions with all the ri hts, privile es and (enefits due re ular e'plo"ees, and to pa" their full (a&@ wa es whi&h, with the e6&eption of Pruden&io Bantolino whose (a&@ wa es 'ust (e &o'puted upon proof of his dis'issal as of 0$ !a" $%%., alread" a'ounted to an a re ate of P$,.$3,#44.33.
C4D

In findin for the &o'plainants, the =a(or )r(iter ruled that in &ontrast with the ne ative de&larations of respondent &o'pan";s witnesses who, as distri&t sales supervisors of respondent &o'pan" denied @nowin the &o'plainants personall", the testi'onies of the &o'plainants were 'ore &redi(le as the" suffi&ientl" supplied ever" detail of their e'plo"'ent, spe&ifi&all" identif"in who their sales'enHdrivers were, their pla&es of assi n'ent, aside fro' their dates of en a e'ent and dis'issal. On appeal, the N=RC sustained the findin of the =a(or )r(iter that there was indeed an e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship (etween the &o'plainants and respondent &o'pan" when it affir'ed in toto the latter;s de&ision. In a resolution dated $/ 4ul" #33$ the N=RC su(seAuentl" denied for la&@ of 'erit respondent;s 'otion for &onsideration. Respondent Co&a,Cola Bottlers appealed to the Court of )ppeals whi&h, althou h affir'in the findin of the N=RC that an e'plo"er,e'plo"ee relationship e6isted (etween the &ontendin parties, nonetheless a reed with respondent that the affidavits of so'e of the &o'plainants, na'el", Pruden&io Bantolino, Nestor Ro'ero, Nilo Espina, Ri&ardo Bartolo'e, Eluver -ar&ia, Eduardo -ar&ia and Nelson !analastas, should not have (een iven pro(ative value for their failure to affir' the &ontents thereof and to under o &ross,e6a'ination. )s a &onseAuen&e, the appellate &ourt dis'issed

their &o'plaints for la&@ of suffi&ient eviden&e. In the sa'e De&ision however, &o'plainants Eddie =adi&a, )r'an 8uelin and Rolando Nieto were de&lared re ular e'plo"ees sin&e the" were the onl" ones su(5e&ted to &ross,e6a'ination. 2hus ,
C5D

x x x (T)he labor arbiter conducted clarificatory hearings to ferret out the truth between the opposing claims of the parties thereto. He did not submit the case based on position papers and their accompanying documentary evidence as a full-blown trial was imperative to establish the parties claims. As their allegations were poles apart it was necessary to give them ample opportunity to rebut each others statements through cross-examination. !n fact private respondents "adica #uelling and $ieto were sub%ected to rigid cross-examination by petitioners counsel. However the testimonies of private respondents &omero 'spina and (antolino were not sub%ected to cross-examination as should have been the case and no explanation was offered by them or by the labor arbiter as to why this was dispensed with. )ince they were represented by counsel the latter should have ta*en steps so as not to s+uander their testimonies. (ut nothing was done by their counsel to that effect.
,-.

Petitioners now pra" for relief fro' the adverse De&ision of the Court of )ppealsL that, instead, the favora(le 5ud 'ent of the N=RC (e reinstated. In essen&e, petitioners ar ue that the Court of )ppeals should not have iven wei ht to respondent;s &lai' of failure to &ross,e6a'ine the'. 2he" insist that, unli@e re ular &ourts, la(or &ases are de&ided (ased 'erel" on the parties; position papers and affidavits in support of their alle ations and su(seAuent pleadin s that 'a" (e filed thereto. )s su&h, a&&ordin to petitioners, the Rules of Court should not (e stri&tl" applied in this &ase spe&ifi&all" (" puttin the' on the witness stand to (e &ross, e6a'ined (e&ause the N=RC has its own rules of pro&edure whi&h were applied (" the =a(or )r(iter in &o'in up with a de&ision in their favor. In its disavowal of lia(ilit", respondent &o''ented that sin&e the other alle ed affiants were not presented in &ourt to affir' their state'ents, 'u&h less to (e &ross, e6a'ined, their affidavits should, as the Court of )ppeals ri htl" held, (e stri&@en off the re&ords for (ein self,servin , hearsa" and inad'issi(le in eviden&e. 7ith respe&t to Nestor Ro'ero, respondent points out that he should not have (een i'pleaded in the instant petition sin&e he alread" voluntaril" e6e&uted a Compromise Agreement, Caiver and Duitclaim in &onsideration of P453,333.33. :inall", respondent ar ues that the instant petition should (e dis'issed in view of the failure of petitioners to si n the petition as well as the verifi&ation and &ertifi&ation of non,foru' shoppin , in &lear violation of the prin&iple laid down in "o%uias v. ;ffice of t*e ;mbudsman.
C/D C.D

2he &ru6 of the &ontrovers" revolves around the propriet" of ivin evidentiar" value to the affidavits despite the failure of the affiants to affir' their &ontents and under o the test of &ross,e6a'ination. 2he petition is i'pressed with 'erit. 2he issue &onfrontin the Court is not without pre&edent in 5urispruden&e. 2he oft,&ited &ase of $abago v. 4"$C sAuarel" rapples a si'ilar &hallen e involvin the propriet" of the use of affidavits without the presentation
C%D

of affiants for &ross,e6a'ination. In that &ase, we held that Ythe ar u'ent that the affidavit is hearsa" (e&ause the affiants were not presented for &ross,e6a'ination is not persuasive (e&ause the rules of eviden&e are not stri&tl" o(served in pro&eedin s (efore ad'inistrative (odies li@e the N=RC where de&isions 'a" (e rea&hed on the (asis of position papers onl".Z In $ase v. 4"$C, this Court li@ewise sidelined a si'ilar &hallen e when it ruled that it was not ne&essar" for the affiants to appear and testif" and (e &ross,e6a'ined (" &ounsel for the adverse part". 2o reAuire otherwise would (e to ne ate the rationale and purpose of the su''ar" nature of the pro&eedin s 'andated (" the Rules and to 'a@e 'andator" the appli&ation of the te&hni&al rules of eviden&e.
C$3D

Sout*ern Cotabato :ev. and Construction Co. v. 4"$C su&&in&tl" states that under )rt. ##$ of the =a(or Code, the rules of eviden&e prevailin in &ourts of law do not &ontrol pro&eedin s (efore the =a(or )r(iter and the N=RC. :urther, it notes that the =a(or )r(iter and the N=RC are authoriFed to adopt reasona(le 'eans to as&ertain the fa&ts in ea&h &ase speedil" and o(5e&tivel" and without re ard to te&hni&alities of law and pro&edure, all in the interest of due pro&ess. 7e find no &o'pellin reason to deviate therefro'.
C$$D

2o reiterate, ad'inistrative (odies li@e the N=RC are not (ound (" the te&hni&al ni&eties of law and pro&edure and the rules o(tainin in &ourts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailin 5urispruden&e 'a" (e iven onl" strin ent appli&ation, i.e., (" analo " or in a suppletor" &hara&ter and effe&t. 2he su('ission (" respondent, &itin People v. Sorrel, that an affidavit not testified to in a trial, is 'ere hearsa" eviden&e and has no real evidentiar" value, &annot find relevan&e in the present &ase &onsiderin that a &ri'inal prose&ution reAuires a Auantu' of eviden&e different fro' that of an ad'inistrative pro&eedin . ?nder the Rules of the Co''ission, the =a(or )r(iter is iven the dis&retion to deter'ine the ne&essit" of a for'al trial or hearin . Men&e, trial,t"pe hearin s are not even reAuired as the &ases 'a" (e de&ided (ased on verified position papers, with supportin do&u'ents and their affidavits.
C$#D

)s to whether petitioner Nestor Ro'ero should (e properl" i'pleaded in the instant &ase, we onl" need to follow the do&trinal uidan&e set (" Peri%uet v. N=RC whi&h outlines the para'eters for valid &o'pro'ise a ree'ents, waivers and Auit&lai's ,
C$0D

$ot all waivers and +uitclaims are invalid as against public policy. !f the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. !t is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face that the law will step in to annul the +uestionable transaction. (ut where it is shown that the person ma*ing the waiver did so voluntarily with full understanding of what he was doing and the consideration for the +uitclaim is credible and reasonable the transaction must be recogni/ed as a valid and binding underta*ing.

In &losel" e6a'inin the su(5e&t a ree'ents, we find that on their fa&e the Compromise Agreement and $elease, Caiver and Duitclaim are devoid of an" palpa(le ineAuit" as the ter's of settle'ent therein are fair and 5ust. Neither &an we lean fro' the re&ords an" atte'pt (" the parties to rene e on their &ontra&tual a ree'ents, or to disavow or disown their due e6e&ution. ConseAuentl", the sa'e 'ust (e re&o niFed as valid and (indin transa&tions and, a&&ordin l", the instant &ase should (e dis'issed and finall" ter'inated insofar as &on&erns petitioner Nestor Ro'ero.
C$4D C$5D

7e &annot li@ewise a&&o''odate respondent;s &ontention that the failure of all the petitioners to si n the petition as well as the <erifi&ation and Certifi&ation of Non,:oru' Shoppin in &ontravention of Se&. 5, Rule /, of the Rules of Court will &ause the dis'issal of the present appeal. 7hile the "o%uias &ase reAuires the stri&t o(servan&e of the Rules, it however provides an es&ape hat&h for the trans ressor to avoid the harsh &onseAuen&es of non,o(servan&e. 2hus ,

x x x x 0e find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping re+uires personal *nowledge by the party who executed the same. 1etitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. 2tter disregard of the rules cannot %ustly be rationali/ed by har*ing on the policy of liberal construction (underscoring supplied).
In their E, Parte Motion to "itigate as Pauper "itigants, petitioners 'ade a reAuest for a fifteen *$5+,da" e6tension, i.e., fro' #4 )pril #33# to . !a" #33#, within whi&h to file their petition for review in view of the a(sen&e of a &ounsel to represent the'. 2he re&ords also reveal that it was onl" on $3 4ul" #33# that )tt". )rnold Ca&ho, throu h the ?S2 =e al )id Clini&, 'ade his for'al entr" of appearan&e as &ounsel for herein petitioners. Clearl", at the ti'e the instant petition was filed on / !a" #33# petitioners were not "et represented (" &ounsel. Surel", petitioners who are non,law"ers &ould not (e faulted for the pro&edural lapse sin&e the" &ould not (e e6pe&ted to (e &onversant with the nuan&es of the law, 'u&h less @nowled ea(le with the esoteri& te&hni&alities of pro&edure. :or this reason alone, the pro&edural infir'it" in the filin of the present petition 'a" (e overloo@ed and should not (e ta@en a ainst petitioners.
C$1D

'(EREFORE, the petition is -R)N2ED. 2he De&ision of the Court of )ppeals is RE<ERSED and SE2 )SIDE and the de&ision of the N=RC dated 03 !ar&h #33$ whi&h affir'ed in toto the de&ision of the =a(or )r(iter dated #% !a" $%%. orderin respondent Co&a,Cola Bottlers Phils., In&., to reinstate Pruden&io Bantolino, Nilo Espina, Eddie =adi&a, )r'an 8uelin , Rolando Nieto, Ri&ardo Bartolo'e, Eluver -ar&ia, Eduardo -ar&ia and Nelson !analastas to their for'er positions as re ular e'plo"ees, and to pa" the' their full (a&@ wa es, with the e6&eption of Pruden&io Bantolino whose (a&@ wa es are "et to (e &o'puted upon proof of his dis'issal, is REINS2)2ED, with the !ODI:IC)2ION that herein petition is DENIED insofar as it &on&erns Nestor Ro'ero who entered into a valid and (indin Compromise Agreement and $elease, Caiver and Duitclaim with respondent &o'pan".

G.R. No. 177444

A:r/; 30, 200)

EUGENIO R. A ENI!O, petitioner, vs. CI IL SER ICE COMMISSION, respondent. !ECISION PER CURIAM, J.& 2his is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailin the De&ision dated $. 4anuar" #33/, rendered (" the Court of )ppeals in C.). -.R. SP No. %0#$3, $ affir'in the Resolution# dated 1 )u ust #334, issued (" the Civil Servi&e Co''ission *CSC+, findin petitioner Eu enio )venido uilt" of Dishonest" and Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e, whi&h warranted his dis'issal. 7hile petitioner was e'plo"ed as an )d'inistrative Offi&er at the National 2ele&o''uni&ations Co''ission *N2C+, he was approa&hed (" a town 'ate, Pa(lo DaF *DaF+, who was a representative of )ni'us International In&. *)ni'us International+, a &orporation en a ed in the (usiness of i'portin 'o(ile telephone units and Su(s&ri(er Identit" !odule *SI!+ &ards. Durin this visit fro' DaF, petitioner personall" prepared an Order of Pa"'ent for a Per'it to I'port Cellular Phones in favor of )ni'us International. 2hereafter, petitioner a&&o'panied DaF to the offi&e of !ar&elo !. Buna , 4r. *Buna +, the a&tin assessor and pro&essor of the )'ateur, Dealer and !anufa&turer Servi&e of the N2C li&ensin unit. Sin&e petitioner for'erl" served as an assessor, and is now Buna Ns superior, Buna relied on petitionerNs 5ud 'ent and approved the Order of Pa"'ent prepared (" the petitioner, whi&h (" itself, appeared re ular. Petitioner then personall" delivered the Order of Pa"'ent, to ether with the pa"'ent for the assessed fees of 2wo Mundred :ort" Pesos *P#43.33+, to the Cashier. Iv" Da(an *Da(an+, Cler@ I and a&tin &ashier, re&eived the pa"'ent and issued an Offi&ial Re&eipt for the Per'it to I'port Cellular Phones.0 In a fa&si'ile letter dated #$ :e(ruar" #33$, :ernandino ). 2uaFon, the Offi&er,in,Char e of the Custo's Intelli en&e and Investi ation Servi&e of the Bureau of Custo's, sou ht verifi&ation fro' Onofre de -alindo *-alindo+, the Chief of EAuip'ent Standards Division, N2C,NCR, whether )ni'us International was authoriFed to i'port !otorola &ellular phones in &o''er&ial Aualities. )tta&hed to the said letter was a &op" of the Per'it to I'port, whi&h appears to have (een si ned (" petitioner with the title ECE, )ttorne" III. )fter e6a'inin the re&ords of the N2C,NCR, -alindo dis&overed that )ni'us International was not an a&&redited distri(utorNs supplier of !otorola Philippines.4 :urther investi ation &ondu&ted (" )rnold P. Bar&elona *Bar&elona+, En ineer < and Chief of the Enfor&e'ent O !onitorin Se&tion of the N2C, showed that )ni'us International did not even file an" appli&ation for a Per'it to I'port, an i'portant reAuisite (efore the preparation of an Order of Pa"'ent and the issuan&e of a Per'it to I'port. )ni'us International, however, was a(le to i'port appro6i'atel" P43,333,333.33 worth of &ellular phone SI! &ards. Buna and Bar&elona &onfronted the petitioner re ardin the irre ularit" of the issuan&e of the Per'it to I'port in favor of )ni'us International. 2hereafter, Buna filed an ad'inistrative &o'plaint a ainst petitioner.5 On 1 )pril #33$, the N2C issued a Show Cause Order,1 wherein the a(ove,'entioned in&idents were re&ounted in detail, and petitioner was for'all" &har ed with Dishonest", ?surpation of Offi&ial :un&tion and :alsifi&ation of Pu(li& Do&u'ent. Durin the for'al investi ation &ondu&ted (" the N2C, petitioner was iven an opportunit" to present his defense. Me su('itted a &ertifi&ation (" the National Bureau of Investi ation *NBI+ statin that the si nature appearin in the Per'it to I'port was not his. Petitioner averred that the si nature was for ed (" his town 'ate, DaF. Me onl" ad'itted to preparin the Order of Pa"'ent for the Per'it to I'port and personall" delivered the pa"'ent therefor to the CashierL and he did so >merely to accommodate one of *is to#nsmateEsF, an act of *ospitality, #*ic* is very muc* c*aracteristic of t*e Filipino culture .> /

In its De&ision dated #0 !a" #330, the N2C found petitioner lia(le for Condu&t -rossl" Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e. 2he N2C ave &reden&e to the testi'onies of Buna and Da(an. Buna testified that petitioner prepared the Order of Pa"'ent in the na'e of )ni'us International (" 'a@in the assess'ent of the reAuired fees. Da(an testified that, as &ashier, she re&eived fro' petitioner the assess'ent fee of P#43.33. 2he N2C unders&ored the followin irre ularities in petitionerNs a&ts9 *$+ the preparation of an Order of Pa"'ent without havin (een presented with an appli&ation for Per'it to I'port and other reAuire'ents, and *#+ personall" deliverin the Order of Pa"'ent to the Cashier, instead of turnin over the do&u'ents to Buna , who should deliver the sa'e to the Cashier. B" a&tin in su&h 'anner, petitioner evin&ed a spe&ial interest in the issuan&e of a Per'it to I'port in favor of )ni'us International and a la&@ of &on&ern for the proper pro&edure i'posed (" the overn'ent in the issuan&e of per'its and li&enses. 2he N2C also too@ note of the unusual fa&t that petitioner did not ta@e an" le al a&tion a ainst DaF who had falsified his si nature, and &aused rave da'a e to his reputation. 2he N2C suspended petitioner fro' servi&e for ten *$3+ 'onths. . 2he dispositive part of the De&ision stated that9 7MERE:ORE, in li ht of all the fore oin , the Co''ission finds respondent E?-ENIO R. )<ENIDO uilt" of the li hter offense of >&ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of servi&e> and here(" i'poses upon hi' the penalt", for the $st Offense, of Suspension for 2en *$3+ 'onths, effe&tive upon noti&e, durin whi&h period respondent shall not (e entitled to all 'one" (enefits in&ludin leave &redits, with a warnin that a repetition of the sa'e or si'ilar offense shall (e dealt with 'ore severel". % On appeal, the CSC affir'ed the findin s of the N2C in its De&ision dated #0 !a" #330, with 'odifi&ation. In its Resolution dated 1 )u ust #334, the CSC found petitioner uilt" of Dishonest", in addition to Condu&t -rossl" Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e, whi&h 'erits the penalt" of dis'issal. 2he CSC de&lared that Dishonest" involves the distortion of truth. B" preparin the Order of Pa"'ent and deliverin the sa'e to the Cashier, petitioner 'ade it appear that )ni'us International &o'plied with an appli&ation for Per'it to I'port and other reAuire'entsL thus, petitioner a&ted with Dishonest". !oreover, petitionerNs ross disre ard for the esta(lished pro&edures in the issuan&e of a Per'it to I'port is unAuestiona(l" Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e. =astl", the CSC pronoun&ed that the N2C o(served due pro&ess for althou h the Show Cause Order failed to desi nate an" of the offenses as Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e, the a&ts des&ri(ed therein &onstituted the said offense. $3 2he dispositive part of the CSC Resolution reads9 $$ '(EREFORE, the appeal of Eu enio R. )venido is here(" !ISMISSE!. Mowever, the De&ision of the National 2ele&o''uni&ations Co'pan" dated !a" #0, #330 is here(" 'odified to the effe&t that )venido is additionall" found lia(le for Dishonest". 2hus, Eu enio R. )venido is here(" 'eted out the penalt" of dis'issal fro' the servi&e with the a&&essor" penalties of &an&ellation of his Civil Servi&e Eli i(ilit", forfeiture of retire'ent (enefits and perpetual disAualifi&ation fro' ree'plo"'ent in the overn'ent servi&e. In the De&ision dated $. 4anuar" #33/ in C) -.R. SP No. %0#$3, the Court of )ppeals affir'ed the 1 )u ust #334 Resolution of the CSC. It sustained the findin s of the CSC that the Show Cause Order suffi&ientl" des&ri(ed the irre ularities &o''itted (" the petitioner, even if one of the offenses for whi&h petitioner was found uilt", Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e, was not spe&ified therein. :urther'ore, the appellate &ourt de&reed that su(stantial eviden&e supports the findin that petitioner is uilt" of (oth Dishonest" and Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e.$# Petitioner filed a !otion for Re&onsideration of the afore,'entioned De&ision of the Court of )ppeals, whi&h was denied in a Resolution dated #4 )pril #33/.$0 Men&e, in the present Petition, the followin issues are (ein raised9 $4 I 7ME2MER OR NO2 2ME PE2I2IONER 7)S )::ORDED )!P=E D?E PROCESS O: =)7L II

7ME2MER OR NO2 S?BS2)N2I)= E<IDENCE OB2)INS 2O S?PPOR2 CM)R-ES )-)INS2 2ME PE2I2IONER. 2he petition is (ereft of 'erit. Petitioner &lai's that he was deprived of due pro&ess of law when the N2C, thru a Show Cause Order, &har ed hi' with Dishonest", :alsifi&ation of Pu(li& Do&u'ents and ?surpation of )uthorit", and then found hi' uilt" of Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e, an offense whi&h he avers is so different fro' the offenses with whi&h he was earlier &har ed. $5 2his Court has alread" ruled in :adubo v. Civil Service Commission, that the desi nation of the offense or offenses with whi&h a person is &har ed in an ad'inistrative &ase is not &ontrollin and one 'a" (e found uilt" of another offense, where the su(stan&e of the alle ations and eviden&e presented suffi&ientl" proves oneNs uilt9 It is true that the petitioner was for'all" &har ed with &ondu&t pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of the (an@ and not spe&ifi&all" with e'(eFFle'ent. Nevertheless, the alle ations and the eviden&e presented suffi&ientl" proved her uilt of e'(eFFle'ent of (an@ funds, whi&h is unAuestiona(l" pre5udi&ial to the (est interest of the (an@. 2he &har e a ainst the respondent in an ad'inistrative &ase need not (e drafted with the pre&ision of an infor'ation in a &ri'inal prose&ution. It is suffi&ient that he is apprised of the su(stan&e of the &har e a ainst hi'L what is &ontrollin is the alle ation of the a&ts &o'plained of, not the desi nation of the offense.$1 Due pro&ess 'andates that a part" (e afforded reasona(le opportunit" to (e heard and to su('it an" eviden&e he 'a" have in support of his defense. In ad'inistrative pro&eedin s su&h as the one at (en&h, due pro&ess si'pl" 'eans the opportunit" to e6plain oneNs side or the opportunit" to see@ a re&onsideration of the a&tion or rulin &o'plained of.$/ In the instant &ase, petitioner was furnished a &op" of the &har es a ainst hi' and he was a(le to file an answer and present eviden&e in his defense. ConseAuentl", a de&ision was rendered (" the N2C findin hi' uilt" of an offense whi&h was not spe&ifi&all" desi nated in the Show Cause Order, (ut was still (ased on a&ts that were alle ed therein, spe&ifi&all", 'a@in an assess'ent for the Order of Pa"'ent for an appli&ant who had not even &o'plied with the reAuire'entsL and personall" deliverin the Order of Pa"'ent to the Cashier, instead of turnin over the do&u'ents to the authoriFed offi&er, who should deliver the sa'e to the Cashier. Clearl", therefore, due pro&ess was o(served in this &ase. )&ts 'a" &onstitute Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e as lon as the" tarnish the i'a e and inte rit" of hisHher pu(li& offi&e. 2he Code of Condu&t and Ethi&al Standards for Pu(li& Offi&ials and E'plo"ees *Repu(li& )&t No. 1/$0+ enun&iates, inter alia, the State poli&" of pro'otin a hi h standard of ethi&s and ut'ost responsi(ilit" in the pu(li& servi&e. Se&tion 4*&+ of the Code &o''ands that >Cpu(li& offi&ials and e'plo"eesD shall at all ti'es respe&t the ri hts of others, and shall refrain fro' doin a&ts &ontrar" to law, ood 'orals, ood &usto's, pu(li& poli&", pu(li& order, pu(li& safet" and pu(li& interest.> $. B" showin undue interest in se&urin for )ni'us International a Per'it to I'port, even if it had not &o'plied with the reAuire'ents, petitioner &o'pro'ised the i'a e and inte rit" of his pu(li& offi&e. Dishonest" and Condu&t Pre5udi&ial to the Best Interest of the Servi&e are intrinsi&all" &onne&ted sin&e a&ts of dishonest" would indu(ita(l" tarnish the inte rit" of a pu(li& offi&ial. Petitioner asserts that the findin of uilt a ainst hi' is not supported (" su(stantial eviden&e. 7hile he insists that his a&t of 'a@in the assess'ent in the Order of Pa"'ent is a &o''enda(le a&t of an a&&o''odatin &ivil servant, it was not his dut" to evaluate whether )ni'us International was a Aualified appli&ant for a Per'it to I'port.$% Su&h assertion is a(surd. Co''on sense di&tates that an" offi&er who ta@es it upon hi'self to 'a@e an assess'ent of the fees for the issuan&e of a per'it or li&ense should also ta@e it upon hi'self to ensure that the appli&ant is Aualified. 2o per'it a overn'ent offi&ial to prepare assess'ents for the issuan&e of per'its or li&enses and not pla&e upon hi' or her the &on&urrent dut" of e6a'inin the reAuire'ents would not onl" (e ineffi&ient, (ut would also open the flood ates of &orruption. PetitionerNs a&t of 'a@in the assess'ent i'plies that he had alread" e6a'ined the reAuired do&u'ents and had found the' suffi&ient. Buna , the a&tin assessor of the li&ensin unit &on&erned, had in fa&t (een 'isled (" this sa'e presu'ption

when petitioner personall" delivered to hi' the Order of Pa"'ent. )s it turned out, )ni'us International had not even applied for a Per'it to I'port and was not an a&&redited dealer for !otorola, (ut was nevertheless a(le to ille all" i'port P43,333,333.33 worth of SI! &ards and !otorola &ellular phones. B" willfull" turnin a (lind e"e to )ni'us InternationalNs failure to &o'pl" with le al reAuisites and 'isleadin his N2C &ollea ues, petitioner had not a&ted as a dili ent &ivil servant as he &lai'ed, (ut rather a dishonest and dishonora(le pu(li& offi&ial. Petitioner also 'a@es 'u&h of the findin s 'ade (" the NBI that his si nature in the Per'it to I'port was for ed. Su&h fa&t, however, does not ne ate a findin of uilt on the part of petitioner, who hi'self ad'itted that he prepared and 'ade the assess'ent in the Order of Pa"'ent without e6a'inin the do&u'ents reAuired of )ni'us International. It was (" his own a&t that left roo' for )ni'us International to perpetuate the use of a false per'it. Pu(li& servi&e reAuires ut'ost inte rit" and dis&ipline. ) pu(li& servant 'ust e6hi(it at all ti'es the hi hest sense of honest" and inte rit" for no less than the Constitution 'andates the prin&iple that >a pu(li& offi&e is a pu(li& trust and all pu(li& offi&ers and e'plo"ees 'ust at all ti'es (e a&&ounta(le to the people, serve the' with ut'ost responsi(ilit", inte rit", lo"alt" and effi&ien&".> #3 2he Courts &annot overe'phasiFe the need for honest" and a&&ounta(ilit" in the a&ts of overn'ent offi&ials. In all, the &onsistent findin s of the N2C, the CSC and the Court of )ppeals on the petitionerNs uilt deserve ut'ost respe&t, where their &on&lusions are supported (" the ad'issions 'ade (" petitioner, as well as the testi'onies of Buna and Da(an. 7ell,settled in our 5urisdi&tion is the do&trine that findin s of fa&t of ad'inistrative a en&ies 'ust (e respe&ted as lon as the" are supported (" su(stantial eviden&e, even if su&h eviden&e is not overwhel'in or preponderant. 2he Auantu' of proof ne&essar" for a findin of uilt in ad'inistrative &ases is onl" su(stantial eviden&e or su&h relevant eviden&e as a reasona(le 'ind 'i ht a&&ept as adeAuate to support a &on&lusion. #$ :indin s of fa&t of ad'inistrative (odies, if (ased on su(stantial eviden&e, are &ontrollin on the reviewin authorit". It is not for the appellate &ourt to su(stitute its own 5ud 'ent for that of the ad'inistrative a en&" on the suffi&ien&" of the eviden&e and the &redi(ilit" of the witnesses. )d'inistrative de&isions on 'atters within their 5urisdi&tion are entitled to respe&t and &an onl" (e set aside on proof of rave a(use of dis&retion, fraud or error of law.## IN IE' OF T(E FOREGOING, the instant Petition is !ENIE! and the assailed De&ision of the Court of )ppeals in C.).,-.R. SP No. %0#$3, pro'ul ated on $. 4anuar" #33/, is AFFIRME!. Costs a ainst the petitioner. SO OR!ERE!.