MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT vs.
clearly dismissal – or the permanent
ADANA
MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT, PACITA
O. PO vs. ROLANDO ADANA, et al.
G.R. No. 157634
May 16, 2005
FACTS:
Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR)
hired herein 16 respondents as employees
in its business in Legaspi City. Its operation
was suspended on March 31, 1997 due to
the expiration and non-renewal of the lease
contract for the space it rented. While
waiting for the completion of the
construction of its new site, MHR continued
its operation in another site with 9 of the 16
employees. When the new site constructed
and MHR resumed its business operation,
none of the 16 employees was recalled to
work.
MHR alleged business losses as the reason
for not reinstating the respondents. On
various dates, respondents filed complaints
for underpayment of wages, money claims
and illegal dismissal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondents were illegally
dismissed by petitioner;
2. Whether or not respondents are entitled
to their money claims due to underpayment
of wages, and nonpayment of holiday pay,
rest day premium, SILP, COLA, overtime
pay, and night shift differential pay.
HELD:
1. Illegal Dismissal: claim for separation pay
Since April 1997 until the time the Labor
Arbiter rendered its decision in July 2000, or
more than three (3) years after the
supposed “temporary” lay-off, the
employment of all the respondents with
petitioner had ceased, notwithstanding that
the new premises had been completed and
the same resumed its operation. This is
severance or complete separation of the
worker from the service on the initiative of
the employer regardless of the reasons
therefor.
Article 286 of the Labor Code is clear —
there is termination of employment when an
otherwise bona fide suspension of work
exceeds six (6) months. The cessation of
employment for more than six months was
patent and the employer has the burden of
proving that the termination was for a just or
authorized cause.
While we recognize the right of the
employer to terminate the services of an
employee for a just or authorized cause, the
dismissal of employees must be made
within the parameters of law and pursuant
to the tenets of fair play. And in termination
disputes, the burden of proof is always on
the employer to prove that the dismissal
was for a just or authorized cause. Where
there is no showing of a clear, valid and
legal cause for termination of employment,
the law considers the case a matter of
illegal dismissal.
If doubts exist between the evidence
presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be
tilted in favor of the latter — the employer
must affirmatively show rationally adequate
evidence that the dismissal was for a
justifiable cause. It is a time-honored rule
that in controversies between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from
the evidence, or in the interpretation of
agreements and writing should be resolved
in the former's favor. The policy is to extend
the doctrine to a greater number of
employees who can avail of the benefits
under the law, which is in consonance with
the avowed policy of the State to give
maximum aid and protection of labor.
2. Money claims

The Supreme Court reinstated the award of

monetary claims granted by the Labor
Arbiter.

The cost of meals and snacks purportedly

provided to respondents cannot be
deducted as part of respondents' minimum
wage. As stated in the Labor Arbiter's
decision.
Even granting that meals and snacks were
provided and indeed constituted facilities,
such facilities could not be deducted without
compliance with certain legal requirements.
As stated in Mabeza v. NLRC, the employer
simply cannot deduct the value from the
employee's wages without satisfying the
following: (a) proof that such facilities are
customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the
provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily
accepted in writing by the employee; and (c)
the facilities are charged at fair and
reasonable value. The law is clear that mere
availment is not sufficient to allow
deductions from employees' wages.

As for petitioners repeated invocation of

serious business losses, suffice to say that
this is not a defense to payment of labor
standard benefits. The employer cannot
exempt himself from liability to pay minimum
wages because of poor financial condition
of the company. The payment of minimum
wages is not dependent on the employer's
ability to pay.
CaseDig: Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola
Bottlers
G.R. No. 153660; June 10, 2003
DOCTRINE:
 The Rules of Court, specifically on
Rules of Evidence does not strictly apply to
an administrative body performing quasi-
judicial functions.
 The failure of the affiants to appear
in court for purposes of cross-examination
shall not render their affidavits inadmissible
as it will negate the rationale and purpose of
the nature of summary proceedings.
 Strict observance of the rules with
respect to Verification and Certification of
Non-Forum Shopping allows an exception
upon showing of reasonable cause for
failure to observe the same.
 A waiver and quitclaim which is
contrary to public policy may be recognized
as valid and binding if the agreement is
voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement. Where a person
making the waiver did so voluntarily, with
full understanding of what he was doing,
and the consideration of the quitclaim is
credible and reasonable, the transaction
shall be valid and binding.
FACTS:
 62 employees of the Coca-Cola (the
company) filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice.
 Allegedly, the employees, in the
performance of their duties as route helpers,
bottle segregators, and others, where
replaced and prevented from entering the
company premises.
 Such act by the employer is deemed
an illegal dismissal.
 The company averred that there was
no employer-employee relationship thus the
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction.
 The Labor Arbiter then rendered a
decision in favor of the employees and
ordering the company to reinstate the
complainants to their former posistions with
all the rights, privileges and benefits due
regular employees, and to pay their full back
wages.
 Coca-Cola then appealed the
decision to the NLRC which sustained the
findings of the Labor Arbiter.
 Then, the company elevated the
matter to the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the existence of an employer-
employee relationship but set aside the
favorable decision of 7 employees for lack
of sufficient evidence.
 According to the CA, the affidavits of
the 7 employees should not have been
given probative value for their failure to
affirm the contents thereof and to undergo
cross-examination.
 Only those 3 employees where
declared regular employees since they were
the only ones subjected to cross-
examination.
ISSUE:
WON the affidavits should be given
probative value despite the failure of the
affiants to affirm their contents and undergo
test of cross-examination.
HELD:
The Rules of Evidence are not strictly
observed in proceedings before
administrative bodies like the NLRC where
decisions may be reached on the basis of
position papers only. Citing Rase v. NLRC,
tt was not necessary for the affiants to
appear and testify and be cross-examined
as it would negate the rationale and
purpose of the summary nature of the
proceedings mandated by the Rules and to
make mandatory the application of the
technical rules of evidence.
Ong Chia vs. Republic of the Philippines
(G.R. No. 127240. March, 27, 2000)
02MAY
ONG,CHIA, petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and
THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
RATIO:
It is settled that naturalization laws should
be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in
favor of the government and against the
applicant. [T]he rule of strict application of
the law in naturalization cases defeat
petitioner’s argument of “substantial
compliance” with the requirement under the
Revised Naturalization Law.

FACTS: [T]he reason for the rule prohibiting the

admission of evidence which has not been
The trial court granted the petition and formally offered is to afford the opposite
admitted petitioner to Philippine citizenship. party the chance to object to their
The State, however, through the Office of admissibility. Petitioner cannot claim that he
the Solicitor General, among others for was deprived of the right to object to the
having failed to state all his former placer of authenticity of the documents submitted to
residence in violation of C.A. No. 473, §7 the appellate court by the State.
and to support his petition with the
appropriate documentary
evidence. Petitioner admits that he failed to
mention said address in his petition, but
argues that since the Immigrant Certificate
of Residence containing it had been fully
published, with the petition and the other
annexes, such publication constitutes
substantial compliance with §7.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the documents annexed by
the State to its appelant’s brief without
having been presented and formally offered
as evidence under Rule 132, Section 34 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence justified the
reversal of of the Trial Court’s decision.

HELD:
YES. Decision of the Court of Appeals was
affirmed. Petition was denied.

CaseDig: Sasan vs NLRC
G.R. No 176240; 17 Oct. 2008
FACTS:
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc
(HI), a janitorial and messengerial service
provider, and assigned to E PCI Bank in
Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services
were cut off when EPCI decided to bid out
the janitorial and messengerial jobs to two
other service providers. Sasan et al then
filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging
that they are regular employees of PCI, and
HI has no authority to dismiss them.
After submission of legal positions to the
Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is
engaged in labor on contracting as it
operates without substantial capital as
required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI
as the principal employer and awarding
money claims to the employees for their
illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to
the NLRC and submitted for the first time
photocopy of documents proving that they
have sufficient capital to operate as an
independent contractor. The NLRC modified
the LA's decision taking into consideration
the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC
ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal
was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the
award of backwages and separation pay,
but affirmed the award of 13th month pay
and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which
affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further,
appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc
(HI), a janitorial and messengerial service
provider, and assigned to E PCI Bank in
Gorordo Branch, Cebu City. Their services
were cut off when EPCI decided to bid out
the janitorial and messengerial jobs to two
other service providers. Sasan et al then
filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging
that they are regular employees of PCI, and
HI has no authority to dismiss them.
After submission of legal positions to the
Labor Arbiter, it concluded that HI is
engaged in labor on contracting as it
operates without substantial capital as
required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI
as the principal employer and awarding
money claims to the employees for their
illegal dismissal.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to
the NLRC and submitted for the first time
photocopy of documents proving that they
have sufficient capital to operate as an
independent contractor. The NLRC modified
the LA's decision taking into consideration
the documentary evidence submitted by HI.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC
ruled that the complaint for illegal dismissal
was prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the
award of backwages and separation pay,
but affirmed the award of 13th month pay
and attorneys' fee.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which
affirmed the NLRC's decision. Further,
appealed to the SC, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the NLRC is allowed to received
evidence and give merit with the same
introduced for the first time during appeal?
HELD:
The submission of new evidence before the
NLRC is not prohibited by its new Rules of
Procedure. Rules of evidence prevailing in
in courts of law or equity are not controlling
in labor cases. The NLRC and labor arbiters
are directed to use every and all reasonable
means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law and procedure all in the
interest of substantial justice.

The court further ruled that the petitioners

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

WON the NLRC is allowed to received

evidence and give merit with the same
introduced for the first time during appeal?

The submission of new evidence before the

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

The court further ruled that the petitioners

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