Appeal Period to NLRC

Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and compelling reasons for the liberality, such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in the case or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue involved. After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties. This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies.

While respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided above, it is evident, on the other hand, that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass muster the four-fold test of employment (Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426. August 15, 2011).

Res Inter Alios Acta

In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy (People of the Philippines Vs. Michael Bokingo and Reynante Col, G.R. No. 187536. August 10, 2011)

Certification Election

The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. A labor bargaining representative, to be effective, must owe its loyalty to the employees alone and to no other. The only exception is where the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor Code because of a request to bargain collectively (San Miguel Foods, Inc. Vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011)

Fallo

The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail (ASIAN CENTER FOR CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM AND SERVICES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No. 131656. October 12, 1998).

Hearsay - Entries in Official Records

The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of the exceptions is the entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer. In other words, official entries are admissible in evidence regardless of whether the officer or person who made them was presented and testified in court, since these entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Other recognized reasons for this exception are necessity and trustworthiness. The necessity consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official's attendance as a witness to testify to innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. This will also unduly hamper public business. The trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty by a public officer.

Exhibit “A,” or the Certification of the PRC dated 17 January 1998, was signed by Arriola, Director II of the PRC, Manila. Although Arriola was not presented in court or did not testify during the trial to verify the said certification, such certification is considered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and is therefore presumed to be truthful, because petitioner did not present any plausible proof to rebut its truthfulness. Exhibit A is therefore admissible in evidence (People of the Philippines Vs. Rosario "Rose" Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792. August 31, 2011).

Effect of Separation from Service

As we held in the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr., separation from the service renders a former employee out of the reach of the government’s administrative processes with respect to the former employment, but this claim does not hold true if the separation from the service was in contemplation of and to escape administrative liability from an offense that took place and was investigated while the employee was still in the service (Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Jesus Vincent M. Carbon III, formerly Clerk III, RTC, Zamboanga City, A.M. No. P-10-2836. September 28, 2011).

Pre-trial Order

It is true that the issues to be tried between the parties in a case shall be limited to those defined in the pre-trial order.

However, a pre-trial order is not intended to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be taken during the trial, for it is unavoidable that there are issues that are impliedly included among those listed or that may be inferable from those listed by necessary implication which are as much integral parts of the pre-trial order as those expressly listed.

At any rate, it remains that the petitioner impleaded Cuevas and Saddul as defendants, and adduced against them evidence to prove their liabilities. With Cuevas and Saddul being parties to be affected by the judgment, it was only appropriate for the RTC to inquire into and determine their liability for the purpose of arriving at a complete determination of the suit. Thereby, the RTC acted in conformity with the avowed reason for which the courts are organized, which was to put an end to controversies, to decide the questions submitted by the litigants, and to settle the rights and obligations of the parties (Philippine Export and Foreign Load Guarantee Corporation (now Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines) Vs. Amalgamated Management and Development Corporation, et al.,
G.R. No. 177729. September 28, 2011).