Moresco vs Cagalawan

Facts: 

Moresco Appointed Cagalawan as Head for a line crew then he was transferred to another area but only as a crew member.PETITIONER Cooperative (MORESCO II) failed to file a position paper before the labor arbiter. In its appeal against an adverse decision of the labor arbiter, it invoked the liberal application of the rules and prayed for the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to admit its evidence on appeal. The evidence consisted of a letter dated May 8, 2002 addressed to its General Manager Amado Ke-e, from the area manager of its Gingoog City sub-office, requesting for two additional disconnection linesmen in order to attain its collection quota. The evidence was presented to justify the transfer of respondent Virgilio Cagalawan to its Gingoog sub-office. 

Issue:

 Is the evidence admissible? 

Held: 

No.Labor tribunals, such as the NLRC, are not precluded from receiving evidence submitted on appeal as technical rules are not binding in cases submitted before them. However, any delay in the submission of evidence should be adequately explained and should adequately prove the allegations sought to be proven. In the present case, MORESCO II did not cite why it had failed to file its position paper or present its cause before the labor arbiter despite sufficient notice and time given to do so. Only after an adverse decision was rendered did it present its defense and rebut the evidence of Cagalawan, by alleging that his transfer was made in response to the letter-request of the area manager of the Gingoog sub-office asking for additional personnel to meet its collection quota which lends credence to Cagalawan’s theory that it may have just been fabricated for the purpose of appeal. Nevertheless, Cagalawan, for his part, faithfully complied with the transfer order but with the reservation to contest its validity precisely because he was not adequately informed of its real basis . Hence, Cagalawan was constructively dismissed.