This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Respecting petitioners' objection to the weight given to Garcia's affidavit, it bears noting that said affidavit was not the only basis in arriving at the judgment award. The payrolls for June 16-30, 2003 and February 1-15, 2004 reveal that the overtime rates were below the required rate.[15] That Garcia was not cross-examined on his affidavit is of no moment. For, as Mayon Hotel and Restaurant vs. Adana[16] instructs: Article 221 of the Labor Code is clear: technical rules are not binding, and the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of substantial justice. The rule of evidence prevailing in court of law or equity shall not be controlling in labor cases and it is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that the Labor Arbiter shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. Labor laws mandate the speedy administration of justice, with least attention to technicalities but without sacrificing the fundamental requisites of due process.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is emphasized at the outset that the CA committed no error in reviewing the findings of fact of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana,[5] the Court held thus:x x x [W]hen the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are diametrically opposed and this disparity of findings is called into question, there is, necessarily, a re-examination of the factual findings to ascertain which opinion should be sustained. As ruled in Asuncion v. NLRC. | |||||