THE NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS, REPRESENTED BY TEODORO BASCOS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JOSE GOROSPE, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul and set aside
the resolution issued by the respondent National Labor Relations Commission on
November 29, 1990, in NLRC Case No. RAB II-CN-05-00085-88 entitled “Jose
Gorospe v. The New Valley Times Press”
affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter except the award of moral
damages and attorney’s fees dated August 24, 1989, ordering petitioner the New
Valley Times Press to reinstate private respondent Jose Gorospe to his former
or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges,
with full backwages in the total sum of P31,589.00; and the resolution
dated May 31, 1991, denying the motion
for reconsideration for lack of merit.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner New Valley Times Press is a duly registered printing
press located at Ilagan, Isabela and is represented by its General Manager
Teodoro Bascos, Jr. While private
respondent Jose Gorospe is a linotype machine operator (linotypist) of
petitioner.

Private respondent Gorospe was first employed by the petitioner,
them called Valley Times Press, as linotype machine operator in 1981. Sometime in 1983, he resigned. During this period, petitioner was operated
and managed by the deceased Teodoro L. Bascos and his wife Maxima Bascos,
parents of petitioner Teodoro Bascos, Jr.

On September 28, 1984, the owner-spouses and Macario Evangelista
executed a contract of lease with a term of three (3) years renewable for
another period upon mutual consent. The
contract of lease provided for the lease of the premises of the printing press
and the transfer of the operation and management thereof (Rollo, pp. 15-16).

Sometime in 1986, Macario Evangelista re-hired private respondent
Gorospe as linotypist.

Upon the expiration of the lease on February 15, 1988, the leased
property was reverted back to the possession, management and control of the
owner-spouses, who reorganized the business and gave it its present name, The
New Valley Times Press.

Under this new set-up, the deceased Bascos rehired some of the
employees of Evangelista. However,
private respondent Gorospe was not rehired because the deceased Bascos found
out that the linotype machine previously being operated by him was not
functioning properly.

On May 8, 1988, private respondent Gorospe instituted a complaint
against petitioner printing press with the Office of the Labor Arbiter,
Regional Arbitration Branch No. II, Tuguegarao, Cagayan for illegal dismissal,
non-payment of emergency cost of living allowance and moral damages.

The Labor Arbiter Gregorio C. Calasan rendered a decision on
August 24, 1989, ordering petitioner to reinstate private respondent Gorospe to
his former or equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and with
full backwages and privileges from the time of his dismissal up to
reinstatement amounting to P31,589.00; to pay private respondent P10,000.00
as moral damages and ten percent (10%) of the total judgment sum as attorney’s
fees.

Hence, the petitioner interposed an appeal to the respondent
Commission.

On November 29, 1990, after finding that there existed no
sufficient justification to disturb the appealed decision, the respondent
Commission rendered a resolution affirming the decision but deleted the award
of moral damages and attorney’s fees.

The respondent Commission found as follows:

“Respondent premised their defense of lack of
employer-employee relationship on their allegation that for four years
inclusive of complainant’s employment period – the New Valley Times Press,
although they are the rightful owners were actually under lease agreement with
Macario Evangelista their former and also now their manager. A perusal of the records on hand, however
reveal that no evidence was presented by respondent to support claim that a
lease agreement was in effect at
the time of complainant’s second employment. A copy of the contract would have suffice, but no such proof was
submitted. Thus, it gave Us the
impression that complainant was indeed telling the truth that respondents
herein were his employer during his first and second employment with New Valley
Times Press. Add to this, the reasoning
given by respondent on why allegedly complainant was refused employment by them
and this because after ordering him to verify the state of the linotype machine
he was to work with, they found out many
defects – then put the blame on him for alleged negligence and
inefficiency. x x x.” (Rollo, pp.
35-36)

Such resolution prompted the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration.

However, the respondent Commission issued a resolution dated May
31, 1991 denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It found no compelling reason to disturb the
Resolution sought to be reconsidered and refused to give due consideration to the allegation regarding
respondent’s poor health and old age arguing that the latter was properly
represented by counsel. Accordingly, it
refused to allow respondent-appellant to introduce evidence at this late stage
of the proceedings. It stressed that
the rule of procedure does not allow new matters or incidents raised for the
first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration. (Rollo, p. 44)

Hence, this present
petition.

Petitioner maintains that the respondent Commission gravely
abused its discretion when it disallowed the introduction of contrary evidence
for the first time on motion for reconsideration, particularly the lease
contract and affidavit executed by Evangelista, to disprove the existence of
employer-employee relationship. The
petitioner insists that its
inability to present evidence before the Labor Arbiter and on appeal is fully
justified because of the late Teodoro Bascos’
ill health which necessitated medical treatment abroad. Furthermore, his former counsel, Atty. Eusebio Aguirre, who was then in his
mid-eighties, is suffering from the debilitations of old age.

Petitioner also stresses that the failure of the present counsel
to submit and present the pertinent documentary evidence from the outset of the
appeal is justified because such documents were not yet known to him at that
time and were in the custody of the late Bascos who was then undergoing medical
treatment in the United States.

In conformity with the petitioner’s position, the Solicitor
General argues that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor
cases. Thus, it was grave error for
respondent Commission to brush aside the evidence submitted by petitioner which
would conclusively disprove the existence of an employer?employee
relationship.

On the contrary, respondent Commission contends that its denial
of the petitioner’s presentation of evidence for the first time on motion for
reconsideration is not tantamount to grave abuse of discretion. It emphasizes that petitioner was amply
represented by counsel in all stages of the proceedings and therefore bound by
the action of its counsel.

In addition, it notes that the petitioner has been given several
opportunities to present evidence and assuming arguendo that petitioner
was allowed to present evidence, the same will not affect the outcome of the
case because there was a clear indication that private respondent Gorospe was
among the retained or rehired employees of petitioner.

After a careful review of the records of this case, the Court
finds the petition meritorious and holds that the respondent Commission gravely
abused its discretion when it disallowed the presentation of petitioner’s
evidence for the first time on motion for reconsideration.

The belated presentation of the evidence notwithstanding,
respondent Commission should have considered them just the same. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
General, who has impartially taken a contrary view vis-a-vis that portion of
said decision of respondent Commission which he is supposed to defend,
technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every and
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 (Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.
80600, March 21, 1990, 183 SCRA 451, 457).

Thus, even assuming that the lease contract, affidavit executed
by Evangelista and other pertinent evidence were not submitted to the labor
arbiter and later on appeal to the respondent Commission, the fact that they
were submitted on motion for reconsideration is cogent basis for the respondent
Commission to consider and admit said evidence, instead of falling back on the
mere technicality that said evidence can no longer be considered and admitted
on motion for reconsideration. Respondent Commission exercises quasi-judicial functions wherein the
rules of technicality should give way to equity and fairness.

It is noteworthy that the admission of the lease contract, charge
invoices, official receipts, payroll and the affidavit executed by Evangelista
readily disproves the existence of employer-employee relationship between
private respondent Gorospe and petitioner and shows instead the
employer-employee relationship between Evangelista and private respondent
Gorospe.

The pertinent portion of the lease contract provides:

“9. That the LESSEE
can employ new employees or fill the staff of the Valley Times at his own
initiative in order to ensure the timely release of the Valley Times
publication x x x.” (Rollo, p. 16)

Furthermore, in an affidavit executed by Evangelista dated
February 27, 1990, he admitted that he operated, managed and controlled the
printing press and that private respondent Gorospe was his employee. The Affidavit is hereunder quoted as
follows, to wit:

“AFFIDAVIT“

“I, MACARIO E. EVANGELISTA, of legal age, Filipino, married,
businessman and a resident of Ilagan, Isabela, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state:

“1. That on September 28, 1984, I ran and operated the printing
press known as the ‘Valley Times Press’ in Ilagan, Isabela, and owned by the
spouses Teodoro Bascos and Maxima Bascos, by virtue of a ‘Contract of Lease’
executed between me and Teodoro Bascos which lasted until February 14, 1988;

“2. That during the term of said lease, I and my wife Francisca
Evangelista had the exclusive management, operation and control of the said
printing press, including the hiring and firing of employees;

“3. That sometime in April 1986, I employed JOSE GOROSPE to work as
my linotypist in the leased ‘Valley Times Press’ with his knowledge and
understanding that as such employee I was the one to pay all his wages or
salaries, and that he was to be under my exclusive control and supervision
insofar as his work as linotypist was concerned for the entire duration of my
aforementioned lease contract with the spouses Bascos;

“4. That Jose Gorospe was my own employee in the ‘Valley Times
Press’ up to the time my aforesaid lease contract expired on February 14, 1988,
and not of the spouses Teodoro Bascos and Maxima Bascos or of the latter’s
newly organized ‘The New Valley
Times Press’;

“5. That I am executing this affidavit only in the interest of
truth and nothing else.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27 (th)
day of February (,) 1990 at Ilagan, Isabela, Philippines.” (Rollo, p. 38)

Thus, it is evident from the evidence presented that no
employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and private
respondent. Instead, private respondent
was really an employee of Evangelista.

Since petitioner had no obligation to absorb the employees of the
former management and to continue employing them when it re-assumed the
operation of the printing press in 1988, it is only logical to conclude that
there could possibly be no illegal dismissal.

All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the assailed
resolutions of the respondent Commission are tainted with arbitrariness that
amounted to grave abuse of discretion. Respondent Commission’s refusal to allow the introduction of contrary
evidence for the first time on motion for reconsideration led it to the erroneous conclusion
that the labor arbiter did not err
in ruling that there existed an employer-employee relationship between the
parties and that private respondent was illegally dismissed.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of
the Labor Arbiter and the resolutions of
the respondent Commission are hereby SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.