ANICETO W. NAGUIT JR. VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

ANICETO W. NAGUIT JR.

VS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
408 SCRA 617 (2003)

In order for affidavits to be admissible as evidence, the Labor Code provides that the adverse party should be given opportunity to cross-examine the affiants.

Petitioner Aniceto Naguit was employed as an administrative officer of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). Naguit rendered overtime work 8am to 12pm. Upon the preparation of his timesheet, it was reflected that he worked until 5pm instead of 12pm. Naguit did not inform the timekeeper of this fact. Furthermore, Naguit being the custodian of petty cash, released to Fidel Cabuhat the amount representing meal allowance and rental for a jeep covering his alleged overtime work. Two years later, he was charged with violating company policy because of said incident. In the administrative hearing, MERALCO’s evidence consisted primarily of the sworn statements of Cabuhat alleging that he was induced by Naguit to falsify the time cards. Naguit was dismissed after 32 years of service.

Naguit appealed his dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of Naguit. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the NLRC erred in giving full credence to the affidavit of Cabuhat

Held:
In fine, the Court credits that Naguit was in good faith when he did not correct the entry in the Notice of Overtime and Timesheet reflecting that he worked up to 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 1987. The charge of falsification against him does not thus lie.

In labor cases, the Court has consistently held that where the adverse party is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. Thusly, such affidavits of Cabuhat are inadmissible as evidence against Naguit.
Naguit contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving full credence to the affidavits of Cabuhat claiming that he was induced by Naguit to claim overtime pay despite Cabuhat’s failure to affirm them during the arbitral proceedings, he having failed to show up, thus making them inadmissible under the hearsay rule.