This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Here, there is merit in petitioners' contentions. Although the basic rule is that questions of facts like this may not be addressed in a petition for review, there are certain exceptions, such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[45] At the earliest possible opportunity, that is, as early as the position paper filed on September 14, 1998, petitioners already denied being the employers of the respondents Calpito Mendoles and Rene Corales. Later, in their Motion for Reconsideration[46] dated January 8, 2004, petitioners also disclaimed liability to Rolando Naelga, who was not in the labor inspector's and Regional Director's original list of petitioners' workers and against whom petitioners were not afforded the chance to present countervailing evidence. Since then, petitioners have consistently denied liability as employers of these respondents. These respondents, however, not only failed to controvert this denial by petitioners, they also did not participate in the proceedings of the case, as shown by the records. Thus, there was a failure to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and these particular respondents. Respondents could have easily proven their relationship by presenting any of the following: their appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization charts, Social Security System registration, personnel list, as well as the testimonies of co-employees to confirm their status,[47] but failed to do so. We can only conclude, therefore, that there is no substantial evidence to prove petitioners' obligations to these respondents. | |||||