5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly more or less strictness, disappears when adduced in connection with proceedings before Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission; for in said proceedings, the law is explicit that `the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the (law's) spirit and intention that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.' Indeed, it is not the Rules of Court enacted by the Supreme Court but rather the regulations promulgated by the National Labor Relations Commission which govern "the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches**.' The `Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines and prevailing jurisprudence,' the law says, may be applied to labor cases only under quite stringent limits, i.e., `in the absence of any applicable provision (in the Rules of the Commission), and in order to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code**, in the interest of expeditious labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient, by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect." Under these rules, the proceedings before a Labor Arbiter are `nonlitigious in nature' in which, `subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law ** (do not) strictly apply." Undoutedly, the factual and legal bases of respondent NLRC's conclusions are bereft of substantial evidence - the quantum of proof in labor cases. As aptly said by the Solicitor General, its decision is "baseless and erroneous." Its disposition is manifestly a grave abuse of discretion.[23] In concluding that respondent JEAC was a mere "travel agency" and petitioner, a mere "tourist," respondent NLRC came up with a new theory which find no support even from the evidence of private respondents, the party in whose favor the decision was rendered. First, there is nothing in the record which shows that respondent JEAC is a mere travel agency. Even private respondents consistently plead that respondent JEAC is a "licensed recruitment agency authorized to recruit and deploy overseas Filipino contract workers." Second, the evidence upon which respondent NLRC based its findings consist of agreements authorizing Victor Lim to deduct from the salaries of petitioner and his co-workers the amount of their obligations to respondent Cayanan. It would be too much of a coincidence to say that petitioner and his co-workers are all mere tourists who allowed a certain Victor Lim to deduct from their salaries the amount of their obligations to respondent Cayanan. What is evident here is that there is an internal arrangement between respondent Cayanan and Victor Lim brought about by the fact that the former deployed these workers to serve the latter. As correctly pointed out by the POEA, there must be a "previous arrangement" between private respondents and Victor Lim. Significantly, from these pieces of evidence respondent NLRC could already see the falsity in private respondents' "total strangers" theory. How could there be an https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52737 6/11