BANTOLINO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC.

G.R. No. 153660 June 10, 2003

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Procedural History:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated December 21, 2001 which affirmed with modification the decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission promulgated 30 March 2001 wherein petitioners were denied to be
reinstated because of failure to affirm the contents of their affidavits and to undergo crossexamination.
Statement of facts:
On February 25, 1995 sixty-two (62) employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc.,
and its officers, Lipercon Services, Inc., People's Specialist Services, Inc., and Interim Services,
Inc., filed a complaint against respondents for unfair labor practice through illegal dismissal,
violation of their security of tenure and the perpetuation of the "Cabo System." They thus prayed
for reinstatement with full back wages, and the declaration of their regular employment status.
For failure to prosecute as they failed to either attend the scheduled mandatory
conferences or submit their respective affidavits, the claims of fifty-two (52) complainantemployees were dismissed. Thereafter, Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera conducted clarificatory
hearings to elicit information from the ten (10) remaining complainants (petitioners herein)
relative to their alleged employment with respondent firm.
On May 29, 1998 Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera rendered a decision ordering respondent
company to reinstate complainants to their former positions with all the rights, privileges and
benefits due regular employees, and to pay their full back wages which, with the exception of
Prudencio Bantolino whose back wages must be computed upon proof of his dismissal as of 31
May 1998. On appeal, the NLRC sustained the finding of the Labor Arbiter that there was
indeed an employer-employee relationship between the complainants and respondent company
when it affirmed in toto the latter's decision.
Respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers appealed to the Court of Appeals which, although
affirming the finding of the NLRC that an employer-employee relationship existed between the
contending parties, nonetheless agreed with respondent that the affidavits of some of the
complainants, namely, Prudencio Bantolino, Nestor Romero, Nilo Espina, Ricardo Bartolome,
Eluver Garcia, Eduardo Garcia and Nelson Manalastas, should not have been given probative
value for their failure to affirm the contents thereof and to undergo cross-examination. As a
consequence, the appellate court dismissed their complaints for lack of sufficient evidence. In
the same Decision however, complainants Eddie Ladica, Arman Queling and Rolando Nieto
were declared regular employees since they were the only ones subjected to crossexamination. Petitioners now pray for relief from the adverse Decision of the Court of Appeals;
that, instead, the favorable judgment of the NLRC be reinstated.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their complaints for failure to
affirm the contents thereof and to undergo cross-examination
Answer:
Yes. Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical niceties of law
and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.
Holding:
Southern Cotabato Dev. and Construction Co. v. NLRC11 succinctly states that under Art.
221 of the Labor Code, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Further, it notes that the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC are authorized to adopt reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the
interest of due process. We find no compelling reason to deviate therefrom.
The Revised Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence may be given only stringent
application, i.e., by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. The submission by
respondent, citing People v. Sorrel,12 that an affidavit not testified to in a trial, is mere hearsay
evidence and has no real evidentiary value, cannot find relevance in the present case
considering that a criminal prosecution requires a quantum of evidence different from that of an
administrative proceeding. Under the Rules of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter is given the
discretion to determine the necessity of a formal trial or hearing. Hence, trial-type hearings are
not even required as the cases may be decided based on verified position papers, with
supporting documents and their affidavits. We cannot likewise accommodate respondent's
contention that the failure of all the petitioners to sign the petition as well as the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in contravention of Sec. 5, Rule 7, of the Rules of Court
will cause the dismissal of the present appeal.