Mega Magazine Publications, Inc.

,
et al. vs. Margaret A. Defensor
G.R. No. : 162021. June 16, 2014
Ponente : Lucas P. BErsamin
Subject
: LABOR (Degree of Proof)
FACTS:
Petitioner
Mega
Magazine
Publications, Inc. (MMPI) employed
respondent Margaret A. Defensor as a
Group Publisher. Margaret made
several proposals to MMPIs Exec. VP
Sarita V. Yap for year-end commissions
and special incentive plan for the
Sales Department. Yap made counterproposals which include a 14th month
pay and even ask Margaret to draft
something the former could sign.
Margaret then submitted another
proposal which Yap made no comment
immediately so the former assumed
that the latter was amenable to the
terms proposed. However, on a later
date,
Yap
responded
with
a
formalization of her approval of the
special incentive scheme proposed by
respondent
revising
anew
the
schedule and the proposed special
incentives. After Margaret had left the
company, she filed a complaint for
payment of bonus and incentive
compensation
with
damages
demanding payment of the sales
commissions, 14th month pay, and
share in the incentive scheme based
on her last proposal and not on the
last revised proposal made by Yap. Yap
claim that sale did not reach the
minimum quota for them to grant
Margaret outright commissions and
special incentive bonus.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
respondents complaint. NLRC denied
the appeal. Respondent then filed a
motion for reconsideration and in the
supplement she included a motion to
admit
additional
evidence
(the
affidavit of Lie Tabingo who had
worked as a traffic clerk corroborated
respondents claim that it had reach
its minimum quota) on the ground
that
such
evidence
had
been
unavailable during the hearing as
newly discovered evidence in a

motion for new trial. NLRC denied said

motion
for
reconsideration.
CA
dismissed respondents petition for
certiorari.
On
motion
for
reconsideration, CA reversed its
decision and remanded the case to
NLRC for the reception of additional
evidence.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent was
entitled to the commissions and
the incentive bonus being claimed.
2. Whether or not the claim of MMPIs
gross revenue or the affidavit of
Tabingo corroborating respondents
memorandum to the Accounting
Department must be given more
weight.
HELD:
1. Respondent was entitled to the
commissions and the incentive
bonus based on the proposal
approved by Yap.
Due to the nature of the bonus
or special incentive being a
gratuity or act of liberality on
the part of the giver, the
respondent could not validly
insist
on
her
proposed
schedule considering that the
grant of the bonus or special
incentive
remained
a
management prerogative.
2. We rule in favor of the respondent
Margaret. The degree of proof
required in labor cases is not as
stringent as in other types of cases.
This liberal approach affords to the
employee every opportunity to
level the playing field in which her
employer is pitted against her.
Only substantial evidence
that
amount
of
relevant
evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion was
required in labor adjudication.
Moreover,
whenever
the
evidence presented by the
employer and that by the
employee are in equipoise, the

scales of justice must tilt in

favor of the latter.

Digested by:
Jacqueline A. Llabado
April 20, 2015