Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

National Capital Region

Quezon City

SECOND DIVISION
ARMANDO SAPITULA SORIANO,
et. al.,
Complainants,
NLRC CA NO. 12-003009-14(4)
NLRC NCR CASE NO. NCR-06-

-versus07262-14

HONEYBARN MKTG. / BRAND

& LIFESTYLE / SYNERGY
SOURCING / 1) DEXTER DY
2) PETER HUANG 3) JENZEL
ORALLO,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant, Armando S. Soriano, John Harris A.

Nuez, Ernesto T. Bendillo, Anthony D. Arquero and
Deniis
Attorney,

R.

Laroza.

through

the

undersigned

Public

and unto this Honorable Commission, most

respectfully moves for the reconsideration of its Decision

promulgated on March 31, 2015, copy of which was
received by the Complainant-Appellants on April 16, 215,
the dispositive portion of which provides:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

the instant Motion for Reconsideration is
GRANTED. Our assailed January 22, 2015
Decision is SET ASIDE. The October 24,
2014 Labor Arbiters Decision is MODIFIED
in that the award for salary differentials are
re-computed as follows:
Anthony Arquerro
P466.00/ 8 hours = 58.25
P58.25 35.00.00 = 23.25 x 45 hours =
1,046.25
Ernesto Bendillo
P 58.25 31.25 = 27.00 x 56 hours =
1,512.00
Dennis Lanoza
P 58.25 38.50 = 19.75 x 39 hours =
770.25
John Harris Nunez
P 58.25 35.00 = 23.25 x 52 hours =
1,209.00
Armando Soriano
P 58.25 35.000 = 23.25 x 49 hours = 1,
139.25
TOTAL
=
P5,676.75
SO ORDERED.

NATURE AND TIMELINESS

OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainants received the notice of Judgment/Decision
on April 16, 2015 which means that the last day to file an
appeal falls on April 27, 2015. The complainant is hereby
filing this present Motion for Reconsideration, within 10calendar days, provided under the rules.

THE PARTIES
Complainant-Appellant in the instant case are all
Filipinos and all of legal age, and residents of:
1.

Armando S. Soriano 25 Dayap Street,

2.

Western Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila;

John Harris A. Nuez Zone 3, Lower Sta.
Ana, Barangay Sun Valley, Paraaque City,

3.

Metro Manila;
Ernesto T. Bendillo

4.

Western Bicutan, Taguig City, Metro Manila;

Anthony D. Arquero - Zone 3, Lower Sta. Ana,

25

Dayap

Street,

Barangay Sun Valley, Paraaque City, Metro

5.

Manila;
Deniis R. Laroza Bukid Area 4, Barangay
Sun Valley, Paraaque City, Metro Manila;

Where they may be served with notices, orders and

other processes of this Honorable Commission at their
residential addresses indicated above.
Respondent-Appellee Honey Barn Marketing is a
LOCAL RECRUITMENT AGENCY duly organized and
existing in accordance with Philippine laws located at Unit
5A Crown Tower 1134 Soler Street, Binondo, Manila. Its
officers

and

employees

of

respondent

Honey

Barn

Marketing, Dexter Dy, Peter Huang and Jenzel Orallo,

which they may be served with writ and processes of the
Honorable Office at the above-stated address of respondent
Honey Barn Marketing.

GROUNDS FOR THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
3

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE

COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED DISREGARDING AND
MISAPPRECIATING THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS
BELATEDLY SUBMITTED AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
ON THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DISCUSSIONS
As

regards

the

first

and

only

error,

the

complainants most respectfully submit that the strict

application of the presentation of additional or new
evidence should have been applied. As can be gleaned from
the

March

31,

2015

Decision,

even

the

Honorable

Commission agrees, as seen in the body of such decision:

The proper time for submission of evidence
is before the Labor Arbiter. Likewise, the
appropriate time for questioning the authenticity
of the opponents evidence should be made at the
very first opportunity given to a party. That is,
from the time of receipt contained in their Reply,
still before the Labor Arbiter. Bur respondents
kept silent about it until the Labor Arbiter
rendered her assailed decision.
xxx
Moreover, we cannot be more emphatic
that the liberal policy in labor cases should still
be subject to rules of reason and fair play. The
liberality of procedural rules is qualified by two
requirements: (1) a party should adequately
explain and delay in the submission of evidence;
and (2) a party should sufficiently prove the
allegations sought to be proven. The reason for
4

these requirements is that the liberal application

of the rules before the quasi-judicial agencies
cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and
hamper the just resolution of the case. Neither is
the rule on liberal construction a license to
disregard the rules of procedure. In this case,
respondents failed to meet the said requirements.
A careful reading of the body of the March 31, 2015
Decision, the Honorable Commission patently disregarded
the fact that the respondents belatedly presented evidence
to support their claim.
As a general rule, the submission of new or additional
evidence is not entirely prohibited by the rules. However, in
the instant case, the submission of new or additional
evidence on appeal must be given strict application.
Indeed, as a general rule, the submission of
additional evidence before the NLRC on appeal is
not prohibited by

the 2005 Revised Rules of

Procedure of the NLRC. The NLRC may consider

evidence

such

as

documents

and

affidavits

submitted therewith by the parties for the first

time on appeal. The submission of additional
evidence on appeal does not prejudice the other
party for the latter may still submit counterevidence1.
However,

as

an

exception

to

such

rule,

the

submission of new or additional evidence on appeal is given

strict applications. If all the while, however, the proof was
presented for the first time on appeal was in the companys
1

NFD International Manning Agents vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 11629

possession and it offered no val.id excuse for its nonsubmission to the Labor Arbiter, the same could no longer
be presented for the first time on appeal with the NLRC. 2
As held in a number of cases:
In Spouses Santos v. NLRC, G.R. No.
120944. July 23, 1998. The Supreme Court did
not allow its admission for the first time on
appeal with the NLRC because all the while, this
proof was in the companys possession and it
offered no excuse for tis non-submission to the
Labor Arbiter. Due process cannot be accorded
to a negligent litigant if it will result in injustice
to the other litigant who has been diligent in
observing the rules of litigation. It is true that, in
some cases, the power of the NLRC to admit
additional evidence on appeal has been upheld,
but in those cases, the failure to submit the
evidence was justified.
In Angeles vs. Fernandez. G.R. No.
160213. January 3, 2007. It held that: Delay in
the submission of evidence should be clearly
explained and should adequately prove the
employers allegation of the cause for
termination. Thus, petitioner did not explain her
belated submission of the affidavits of her
witnesses
on
appeal
with
the
NLRC.
Consequently, her pleat that the affidavits be
admitted in the interest of truth, justice and fair
play was declared as lacking in merit.
In Filipinas
[Pre-fabricated
Bldg.]
Systems, Filsystems Inc. v. NLRC G.R. No.
15359, where the company never presented
any contrary evidence while the case was
pending with the Labor Arbiter, the Supreme
Court did not countenance the late submission
of evidence by the company for the first time on
2

Chan. Labor Code of the Philippines. Page 291

appeal with the NLRC. It said that it should have

adduced its evidence on the issue of illegal
dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. It, however,
failed to do so despite the opportunities given by
the Labor Arbiter. It was only when an adverse
when an adverse decision was rendered against
it by the Labor Arbiter that it offered to submit
its evidence before the NLRC refuting the
employees complaint of illegal dismissal. Such a
practice cannot be tolerated for it will defeat the
speedy administration of justice involving poor
workers. Moreover, it smacks of unfairness.
For the sake of argument. Granting, without admitting
that such pieces of evidence forms integral part of the
instant

case,

the

respondent

still

competent and admissible evidence.

Rules

on

Evidence,

Rule

128,

fails

to

present

As found in the

Section

provides:

Admissibility of evidence Evidence admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not exclude by the law or these
rules.

Following such provision, the law specifically mentions

requirements for an evidence to be admissible. Hence, as
provided for in the Labor Code, the evidence offered by the
respondent should be held inadmissible as being excluded
by the law. In the instant case, Filing beyond the
reglementary period and only after the decision given by
the Labor Arbiter will render such evidence as excluded by
law. Moving now on the admissibility of the pieces of
evidence presented by the respondents, It is incredulous
that the Honorable Commission actually stated:
Xxx

Rules of Court. Rule 12, Section 3.

Further, even if we admit these payrolls in

the interest of justice, still the same do not
deserve

weight

and

credence.

The

alleged

genuine payrolls in themselves are dubious as

they do not contain a column for and the actual
employees signature. The very essence of a
payroll

is

the

employees

signature

as

an

acknowledgment of the employees actual receipt

of the amount stated therein, and not the
signature

of

the

person

who

prepared

and

checked it. Absent employees signature, the

payroll is self-serving.
XXX
Moreover,

if

doubts

exist

between

the

evidence

presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of

justice must be tilted in favor of the employee. Since it is a
time honored rule that in controversies between a laborer
and his master, doubts reasonably arising from evidence, or
in the interpretation of agreements and writings should be
resolved in the formers favor.4
Indispensable is the issue on onus probandi. As
provided, he who alleges must prove the same. In the
instant

situation,

the

respondents

have

not

adduced

evidence of great weight to prove their theory and

allegations. As the respondents were the ones who actually
questioned

the

basis

for

the

computation

of

salary

differential they must be the one to prove the same. As the

employer respondent has all the records and documents
related to the case, it is not the duty of the complainant to
4

Parangan vs. NLRC, et.al., 289 SCRA 142

produce the said pieces of evidence. It is also their duty to

produce such competent evidence.
In

cases

involving

monetary

claims,

it

is

well-

entrenched that the burden of proving thereof rests on the

employer.

The positive testimony of a creditor may be sufficient

of itself to show non-payment, even when met by indefinite
testimony of the debtor. Similarly, the testimony of the
debtor may also be sufficient to show payment but where
such testimony is contradicted by the other party or by a
disinterested witness, the issue may be determined against
the debtor since he has the burden of proof. The testimony
of the debtor creating merely an inference of payment will
not be regarded as conclusive on that issue. Hence, for
failure to present evidence to prove payment, petitioners
defaulted in their defense and in effect admitted the
allegations of private respondents.

The reason for the rule, is that the pertinent personnel

files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar
documents which will show that overtime, differentials,
service incentive leave and other claims of workers have
been paid are not in the possession of the worker but in
the custody and absolute control of the employer.

The complainants must not be faulted on the nonsubmission of duly authenticated payrolls. The complainants
must not be made to suffer on such defect as such was not
MC Engineering, Inc vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 142314
G and M Inc. vs. Cruz. G.R. No. 140495
7
Saberola vs. Suarez. G.R. No. 151227
5

in the first place their duty to prove or disprove. As seen,

the complainants had exerted all their diligent effort to
provide for a pay roll to prove the salary differential due
them. Hence, it is now the responsibility of the respondents
to

provide

payrolls

duly

signed

by

them

and

the

complainants to prove all their claims.

Also, It can be read in the Decision, that the Honorable
Commission rendered a decision, to wit:
xxx
Moreover, respondents did not question the
authenticity of the payrolls outright in their
Reply. Rather, it was only raised on appeal. Such
is a mere afterthought which deserves no
consideration.
Non-production of the pertinent records by
the company raises doubt considering that it
was in total exclusive control of such records.
Unfavorable presumption that such records if
produced would be adverse to company, applies.
Xxx
The body of the decision seemed to lean towards the
non-appreciation of belatedly produced evidence. However,
reading further would divulge that which seems to be
purportedly reproduced to make believe and to make the
complainants be at the losing end.

In the end, the

Honorable Commission still ruled that the computation of

the salary differential of the complainants should be
modified. Such misplaced appreciation of the issues raised
by the respondent through their Motion for computation
appears not to be supported by pieces of evidence on the
basis for the computation.
10

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

it

is

most

respectfully prayed unto this Honourable Second Division

that the Decision rendered by the Second Division dated
March

31,

2015

which

granted

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration of the respondents, be reconsidered and

reversed, and the Decision dated 22 January 2015 issued by
the Honorable Commission affirming the 24 October 2014
Decision of the Honorable Labor Arbiter be reinstated.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise most respectfully prayed for.

Manila for Quezon City, April 23, 2015

Assisted by:
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Manila District Office
4th Floor W. Godino Bldg.
350 Arroceros Street
Ermita, Manila
By:

ATTY. MARTIN IIGO C. ORTIZ

Public Attorney II
Roll of Attorneys No. 59443
MCLE Compliance No. V-0006254
IBP no.: 957909
Office Tel. No.: (02) 523-2030

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court)
11

Service of this Motion for Reconsideration was

made on Respondents via registered mail instead of
personal, due to distance, time and manpower
constraints.

MARTIN IIGO C.
ORTIZ
Copy furnished:
ATTY. CESAR B. TUOZO
Counsel for the Respondent
Unit J, 6th Floor, El Dorado, Tower 2
California Garden Square, Libertad Street
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila

12