Panlilio vs NLRC : 117459 : October 17, 1997 : J. Romero : Third Division
2 of 3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/117459.htm
product line or service activity.[5]
On this matter, we agree with the observation and conclusion of the POEA which we quote,
to wit:
Not a single evidence was submitted to bolster their contention. It is not enough for respondent to allege
that complainants position became redundant and that there was restructuring of the staff at the Health
Club of the Oman Sheraton Hotel. Respondents should have presented evidence to support this contention,
such as but not limited to the new staffing pattern, feasibility studies/proposal, on the viability of the
newly created positions, job description and the approval by the management of the restructuring.[6]
This view was bolstered by the NLRC in its original decision wherein it held that:
The affidavits just recently submitted merely touched on the issue of discrimination denying it ever existed
or that complainant was its victim. Apart from being self-serving as having been issued by present
employees of respondent Oman Sheraton Hotel to whom their loyalty are (sic) expected to lie, we simply
cannot give much weight to it in the light of our inability and that of the complainant to confront them
with the documents they purportedly signed under oath. More so, even granting arguendo that no
discrimination transpired still, the fact remains that the restructuring and redundancy that became the basis
of complainants severance from employment remains an imaginary preposition unsupported by concrete
evidence.[7]
In its resolution granting FPSs motion for reconsideration, however, the NLRC made a
sudden turnaround and, relying on the same evidence, ruled that redundancy of petitioners
position was adequately proven, necessitating the reversal of its original decision. We cannot
accommodate the new stance of the NLRC.
In overturning its earlier decision, the NLRC reasoned out that since it could have
summoned one of the affiants to amplify his statement, it erred in ruling that said affidavits were
self-serving and of little value.
This argument fails to impress us. Undoubtedly, said documents still do not sufficiently
explain the reason why petitioners position had become redundant, but only elucidated the fact
that he was not a victim of any discrimination in effecting the termination.
We have held that it is important for a company to have fair and reasonable criteria in
implementing its redundancy program, such as but not limited to, (a) preferred status, (b)
efficiency and (c) seniority.[8] Unfortunately for FPS, such appraisal was not done in the instant
case.
Petitioner alleges that the NLRC erred in considering these affidavits which were introduced
for the first time on appeal. We rule that the NLRC acted correctly when it admitted the affidavits
submitted by FPS on appeal, for it cannot be disputed that technical rules of evidence are not
binding in labor cases.[9] Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the
facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure,
all in the interest of due process.[10]
In line with the Courts liberal stance regarding procedural deficiencies in labor cases, we
have held that even if the evidence was not submitted at the earliest possible opportunity, the
fact that it was duly introduced on appeal to the NLRC is enough basis for its eventual
admission.[11]
The admissibility of the affidavits notwithstanding, we cannot affirm the decision of the NLRC
especially when its findings of fact on which the conclusion was based are not supported by
substantial evidence,[12] that is, the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[13]
1/25/2016 12:22 AM