CSC v Colanggo (2008, Corona)

FACTS:Tristan C. Colanggo took the Professional Board Examination for Teachers

(PBET) and obtained a passingrate of 75.98%. On October 1, 1993, he was appointed Teacher
I.Subsequently, a complaint questioning the eligibility of teachers was filed in the Civil
ServiceCommission (CSC) CARAGA Regional Office. The CSC-CARAGA immediately
investigated the matter.In the course of its investigation, the CSC-CARAGA discovered
significant irregularities in respondent's documents. The photographs of "Tristan C. Colanggo"
attached respectively to the PBET application form and to the October 25, 1992 picture seat plan
did not resemble respondent. Furthermore, the signature found in the PBET application form was
markedly different from that affixed on respondent'spersonal data sheet (PDS). It appeared that
someone other than respondent filed his PBET applicationand still another person took the exam
on his behalf. Thus, the CSC-CARAGA filed a formal charge for dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of service against respondent.After evaluating the evidence, the
CSC found that the picture and signatures affixed on the PBET application form, picture seat
plan and PDS undoubtedly belong to three different persons. The CSCconcluded that respondent
did not apply for and take the PBET exam. Thus, the CSC found respondent guilty of dishonesty
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and ordered his dismissal.Respondent filed
a petition for certiorari in the CA. CA granted the petition. It ruled that the photocopiesof the
PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS should have been authenticated. Only
documents or public records duly acknowledged or certified as such in accordance with law
could be presented in evidence without further proof.

ISSUE: WON Rules of Evidence should be strictly applied, thus the pieces of evidence presented
are inadmissible?

HELD: NO. Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective
and to assist partie sin obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective
claims and defenses.

Section39 of the Uniform Rules provides:

“..
The investigation shall be conducted for the purpose of ascertainingthe truth without necessarily
adhering to technical rules applicable in judicial proceedings..”The provision above clearly states
that the CSC, in investigating complaints against civil servants, is notbound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence applicable in judicial proceedings.The CSC correctly appreciated the
photocopies of PBET application form, picture seat plan and PDS (though not duly
authenticated) in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges
against the respondent. Worth noting was that respondent never objected to the veracity of their
contents. He merely disputed their admissibility on the ground that they were not authenticated.
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 EPCI 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.