CIRILO BARNACHEA, PAULINO GONZALES, BERNARDO GONZALES AND RICARDO GOROSPE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE AND SIN HAP LEE & CO., RESPONDENTS.

Barnachea versus Sin Hap Lee and Company

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari brought by Cirilo Barnachea, Paulino Gonzales, Bernardo Gonzales, and Ricardo Gorospe against Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne and the firm Sin Hap Lee and Company. The petitioners are laborers who claimed wage differentials and overtime compensation before the Court of Industrial Relations for work rendered from 1956 to 1959. The case matters because it fixes the standard of review that the Supreme Court applies to factual findings of the Court of Industrial Relations: not preponderance of evidence, but substantial evidence. It is a compact lesson on how documentary evidence, namely time records and payrolls, may defeat conflicting oral testimony, and on the deference the Court gives to the findings of a labor tribunal.

Procedural History

Two complaints were originally filed in the Court of Industrial Relations. One was docketed as Case 1259-V, entitled National Federation of Labor Unions and Benita Bulaon and others against Sin Hap Hua and Company. The other was docketed as Case 1260-V, entitled National Labor Union and Cirilo Barnachea and others against Sin Hap Lee and Company. The respondents are sister companies. With the consent of the parties and the approval of the court, the two cases were jointly tried before a court-appointed commissioner.

After trial, Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista rendered judgment dated October 19, 1963. He dismissed Case 1259-V, and in Case 1260-V he granted the petition for overtime pay and directed the chief of the examining division, or his assistants, to make the necessary computations and submit a report. The decision in Case 1259-V became final. The respondent in Case 1260-V, however, moved for reconsideration.

On January 23, 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations sitting en banc, speaking through Judge Emiliano C. Tabigne with the concurrence of Judges Arsenio I. Martinez, Baltazar M. Villanueva, and Amando C. Bugayong, reversed Judge Bautista's decision and dismissed Case 1260-V for lack of substantial evidence. Judge Bautista dissented in a separate opinion. The petitioners in Case 1260-V then came to the Supreme Court in forma pauperis, on appeal by certiorari.

Facts

The petitioners were laborers of Sin Hap Lee and Company. They claimed overtime compensation for services rendered from 1956 to 1959. The Court of Industrial Relations en banc found that the overtime work rendered by the petitioners was recorded in time records and payrolls, and the petitioners admitted that they signed the several time records and payrolls.

The payrolls particularly showed, as the resolution stated, that for every overtime appearing in the time records the respondent company had clearly paid such extra services. At the time the payrolls were prepared, there was no showing that the entries were incorrect or that they did not reflect the true facts then obtaining regarding the rendition of service by the petitioners. The petitioners signed the payrolls without compulsion or intimidation, and without making any observation as to any irregularity in the entries made therein.

Pitted against this documentary evidence was the testimony of the petitioners. The court below observed that the testimonies of the witnesses on this matter were conflicting and could not therefore be given due weight and consideration. For instance, petitioner Ricardo Gorospe told the court that there were no entries in the payrolls at the time he affixed his signature thereon. Others declared that they did not notice the entries in the payrolls and time records but admitted that they affixed their respective signatures thereon. There was also testimony to the effect that all the entries appearing in the payrolls were already there at the time the signatures were affixed.

Issues

• Whether or not the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc are supported by substantial evidence.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court, on appeal from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, may substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the labor tribunal.
• Whether or not the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc dismissing the claim for overtime pay should be affirmed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled jurisprudential rule governing appeals from the Court of Industrial Relations, which the Court states in its own words:

Rather, jurisprudence is firm in that, on appeal from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, our function is to inquire whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

This rule bears on the case because it defines the narrow scope of the Court's review and explains why the conflicting oral testimony of the petitioners could not overturn the documentary findings below.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc are supported by substantial evidence. The time records and payrolls constitute that substantial evidence which props up the resolution en banc under review. The Court noted that it had recently ruled that, in the presence of conflicting evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations when supported by substantial evidence should not be disturbed.

On the second issue, the Court held that it is not guided by the rule of preponderance of evidence. Its function on appeal is only to inquire whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and if they are, then the judgment must be affirmed. The Court explained that there was a conflict of evidence, oral evidence on one side and the time records and payrolls on the other, and that on the question of probative value the court below gave its nod to the written documents.

There is a conflict of evidence - oral evidence on the one side and the time records and payrolls on the other. On the probative value, the court below gave its nod to the written documents. The resolution under review stands; we may not reverse it.

On the third issue, the Court held that the resolution under review must stand and may not be reversed, and it voted to affirm the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, on appeal from a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, the Supreme Court does not apply the rule of preponderance of evidence; its function is to inquire whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Second, if the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the judgment must be affirmed. Third, in the presence of conflicting evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Industrial Relations, when supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed. Fourth, time records and payrolls signed by the workers without compulsion or intimidation, and without objection to their entries, may constitute substantial evidence that defeats conflicting oral testimony.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations en banc dismissing the claim for overtime pay, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that on appeal from the Court of Industrial Relations the Court asks only whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and if they are, the judgment must be affirmed. Examiners use this case to test the standard of review of labor tribunal findings and the weight of signed payrolls and time records against self-serving oral testimony.