Belated evidence
Respondent Macario Mabunay Jr., a seafarer, filed a complaint against petitioners Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc., Monte Carlo Shipping, and Moises R. Florem, Jr., for the payment of his medical expenses, total disability benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in the respondent’s favor and directed petitioners to pay him permanent and total disability benefits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA decision. On motion for reconsideration, however, the NLRC modified its previous decision by reducing its earlier award to correspond to a Grade 8 disability rating.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA decision of total disability benefits. It ruled that petitioners failed to adequately explain why they submitted only the medical report with the Grade 8 disability rating in its motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
Did the CA commit a reversible error?
Ruling: No.
While it is true that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases and the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence for the first time on appeal, the delay in the submission of evidence must be adequately explained.
Petitioners half-heartedly tried to explain the belated filing of the medical certificate in its petition. x x x
Respondent filed his complaint on January 21, 2010. When mediation proceedings before the Labor Arbiter failed, the parties were directed to file their respective position papers. On July 8, 2010, petitioners filed their Position Paper, to which they could have attached the medical report with the disability rating. However, they failed to do so.
Petitioners could have also attached the medical report in their memorandum on appeal dated Oct. 26, 2010, or in their comment dated Nov. 5, 2010 to respondent’s appeal.
Again, they failed to do so. Petitioners failed to clarify why a document available as early as Aug. 18, 2009 was only submitted into evidence on July 19, 2011, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that it was non-existent on the date indicated in the medical report.
Manning and shipping companies are always in a better position than their employees in accessing, preserving, and presenting their evidence.
In this case, despite the uncontested disability of the employee, he presented all his evidence, even going to the extent of consulting two other doctors after the company-designated physicians refused to provide a disability rating.
This Court notes that petitioners’ actuation on the belated presentation of a suspiciously ante-dated medical certificate borders on a contemptuous act that, under ordinary circumstances, may amount to disciplinary charges against counsel. (Leonen, J., SC 3rd Division, Sharpe Sea Personnel, Inc., et.al. vs. Macario Mabunay, Jr., G.R. No. 206113, Nov. 6, 2017).
While it is true that technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases and the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence for the first time on appeal, the delay in the submission of evidence must be adequately explained.