Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, engaged in manufacturing and selling goods under the brand Novo Jeans & Shirt & General Merchandise, are accused by petitioners, former employees, of various labor violations. The dispute arose when several employees, after airing grievances on a radio program, claimed they were prevented from entering their workplaces on June 7, 2010, and were subsequently dismissed. The employees asserted that despite receiving show cause letters, they were effectively terminated. Respondents, conversely, contended that the employees voluntarily severed their employment and later filed complaints. Procedural History: The employees initially sought resolution through the Department of Labor and Employment, but upon realizing it was not the proper forum, they filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case, finding no evidence of dismissal and ruling that the employees had voluntarily resigned. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding the employees were illegally dismissed and applying the equipoise rule in their favor. However, the Court of Appeals, in a petition for certiorari, overturned the NLRC's ruling, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision and finding that the employees had voluntarily terminated their employment. This petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court followed. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion, as a special civil action for certiorari should not be used for re-evaluation of facts absent such finding. They also challenge the validity of the verification and certification against forum shopping filed by the respondents, asserting that the counsel's verification was based on relayed information, not personal knowledge or authentic records, and that certain respondents, being sole proprietorships, improperly authorized their counsel to sign the certification. Petitioners maintain that the evidence was in equipoise and should have been resolved in their favor, leading to a finding of illegal dismissal, not voluntary termination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals may, in a petition for certiorari, review and re-assess the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission. Whether a verification based on facts relayed to the affiant by his clients is valid, and whether the certification against forum shopping was also defective. Whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed by the respondents.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. Respondents are DIRECTED to reinstate petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights or other privileges.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals may review factual findings of the NLRC in a certiorari petition: The Court reiterated that while factual findings of labor officials are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, they are not infallible. If the NLRC's findings are arrived at arbitrarily or without resort to substantial evidence, it constitutes grave abuse of discretion, which the Court of Appeals may review. In this case, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC made contradictory factual findings, necessitating the CA to re-examine their findings. The CA found the NLRC's findings unsupported by substantial evidence, thus constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the CA did not err in re-examining the facts and evidence in determining grave abuse of discretion. On the validity of a verification based on facts relayed by clients and the defect in the certification against forum shopping: The Court held that a pleading must be verified based on the affiant's personal knowledge or on authentic records. Verification based on facts relayed by clients to their counsel is insufficient for the counsel to attest to the truth of the allegations. The affiant must have "ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations." Relying solely on information relayed by clients means the counsel cannot disclaim liability for misrepresentation, as they lack personal knowledge. Thus, the respondents' Petition for Certiorari before the CA, with its defective verification, should have been considered an unsigned pleading. Furthermore, the certification against forum shopping was also defective as it was signed by counsel without proper authorization for sole proprietors. On whether the petitioners were illegally dismissed: The Court found that the evidence was in equipoise. The petitioners alleged they were prevented from entering their work premises, while respondents claimed voluntary termination and presented sample notices of termination asking for explanation for absence. However, there was no proof that the petitioners actually received these notices; only sample letters were presented. The burden of proof is on the employer to show valid dismissal. The lack of proof of receipt suggests the notices were an afterthought. There was also no proof of abandonment, which requires not only absence but also a clear intention to sever employment. Given the equipoise, the doubt is resolved in favor of labor, and the petitioners are deemed to have been illegally dismissed. The dismissal was not for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code and was not validly informed, thus rendering it illegal.
Main Doctrine
When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the employee. A verification based on facts relayed by clients to counsel is insufficient for the counsel to attest to the truth of the allegations.