In the case of Nuda vs. LGTM Corporation, Inc., [G.R. No. 245835] the Supreme Court (SC) held that there is no dispute that respondents therein filed an appeal before the NLRC and complied with the other requirements for perfecting an appeal, save for the posting of the full amount of the bond.

However, the NLRC, upon filing of respondents’ appeal, required them to post the differential amount between the judgment award and the sum of money previously tendered by them to complete the correct amount of the supersedeas bond.

Respondents complied with the said order of the NLRC and paid the differential amount of PhP322,317.30. Accordingly, the SC found that the liberal application of the requirement on the timely filing of the full amount of the appeal or supersedeas bond is justified under the circumstances:

1. the posting of a PhP71,831.73 bond upon filing respondents’ appeal;
2. full payment of the supersedeas bond in compliance with the Order of the NLRC; and
3. merit in their appeal.

Article 229 [formerly Article 223] of the Labor Code governs the appeal

in labor cases:

ART. 229. [223] Appeal. – Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter

are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both

parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. x x x:

xxxx

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

The mandatory nature of posting a bond in appeals from the arbiter to the NLRC is also highlighted in Section 4(b ), Rule VI of the NLRC Rules, which states that “[a] mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.”

This requirement for the perfection of an appeal is meant to assure workers that if they prevail in the case, the monetary award will be given to them upon the dismissal of the employer’s appeal. Meanwhile, this requirement discourages employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and lawful claims.

This notwithstanding, this Court, in several cases, has relaxed the stringent requirement whenever justified.

These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the [NLRC] Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

What is the value of an affidavit in a labor case? Does it have any probative weight to establish the fact in issue?

In one case, the employer dismissed the complainants for irregularity. The employer presented affidavits to prove that the employees who complained were liable for the dismissal.

However, the complainants argued that the affidavits presented by the employer were inadmissible to prove their culpability which would justify their dismissal from employment. Particularly, they averred that: (1) the affidavits were taken ex-parte and, thus, incomplete and inaccurate; (2) statements therein are self-serving and hearsay, and unsubstantiated by concrete evidence; and (3) the admissions of culpability made by their co-employees are binding only on them and not on complainants. [JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020]

The Supreme Court (SC) held that although the affidavits do not address complainants’ participation in the delivery shortages of broilers, it is apparent that the statements in the same affidavits attest to their

involvement in the unauthorized sale of excess broilers and broiler crates.

Are the affidavits sufficient to establish respondents’ involvement in the alleged acts in question? The SC answered in the affirmative.

In labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence.” Complainants argued, however, that affidavits taken ex-parte should not be given due weight for being self-serving, hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. By citing pertinent provisions on the rules on evidence, they insisted that any admissions made therein cannot be used to establish their culpability, but only of the confessants themselves.

The argument that the affidavits are hearsay for having been taken ex parte i.e., that the affiants were not presented for cross-examination, did not persuade the SC. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings.

Thus, in Bantolino v. Coca Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., the SC held that administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Indeed, the Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.

The argument, citing People v. Sorrel, that an affidavit not testified to in a trial, is mere hearsay evidence

and has no real evidentiary value, cannot find relevance considering that a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an administrative proceeding.

Along the same lines, in Southern Cotabato Development and Construction Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission that Article 221 (now 227) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and that the LA and the NLRC shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process.

Clearly, to disregard the affidavits on the ground that they were taken ex-parte would necessarily require the application of the technical rules of evidence and thereby negate the purpose of the summary nature of labor proceedings mandated by the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure.

At any rate, we find that the affidavits executed by various co-employees constitute substantial evidence to prove respondents’ involvement in the unauthorized sale of excess broilers and broiler crates. We are inclined to give them evidentiary weight absent any evidence to rebut their validity. It is well settled that “a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution.”

The case of Gabunas, Sr. vs. Scanmar Maritime Services Inc. is instructive stating that as between bare allegation and the Affidavit of a witness to the contrary, credence is given to the latter.

In Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., it was held that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies in the one contesting the same.

When the other party failed to present convincing evidence to rebut the assertions made by the other on a crucial point the affidavit may be believed. While the court may be ready to construe in favor of labor in case of doubt, and while the Affidavit presented by employer could be considered self-serving, if there was absolutely no evidence to rebut this Affidavit, the Affidavit must be believed.

See here the procedure to observe when the employee refuses to receive employer’s notice.

In addition, the company should send another copy by registered mail and keep the registry receipt for future reference.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements