Below is a comprehensive legal discussion on the topic “New Evidence on NLRC Appeal: Admissibility of Witness Affidavit” under Philippine law. This article is intended to provide an overview of the relevant rules, jurisprudence, and procedural considerations before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

I. Introduction

In Philippine labor law, disputes initially heard and decided by a Labor Arbiter (LA) can be elevated on appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). One of the recurrent issues in these appeals is whether a party may present or attach “new evidence” that was not introduced during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. In particular, a question arises concerning the admissibility of a witness affidavit that a party seeks to present for the first time on appeal.

Understanding the rules and jurisprudence on the admissibility of newly presented witness affidavits is crucial, especially since labor proceedings are imbued with the policy of speedy disposition and a more flexible application of technical rules of evidence. Nonetheless, the NLRC and the courts still require that established standards be met for such evidence to be considered on appeal.

II. Governing Laws and Rules

Labor Code of the Philippines
- The Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) provides for the original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters over labor and employment disputes, as well as the appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC under Articles 217, 218, and 223 (renumbered in the current Labor Code). While it does not comprehensively detail the rules on evidence, the Code vests the NLRC with rule-making power to govern its proceedings.
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as Amended
- The 2011 Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure (and subsequent amendments) outline how appeals to the Commission should be filed, including the forms of pleading, the time periods, and conditions under which parties may seek the introduction of new or additional evidence.
- Rule VI, Section 2 of the NLRC Rules generally requires that the appeal be verified, specify the grounds relied upon, and that the memorandum of appeal contain the supporting documents.
- Rule VI, Section 10 emphasizes that the Commission has the discretion to allow the introduction of evidence not submitted before the Labor Arbiter, but only under exceptional circumstances. This typically includes newly discovered evidence that was not available or could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the proceedings below.
Rules of Court (Supplementary Application)
- Although labor tribunals are not strictly bound by the technical rules of evidence per se, the Rules of Court may apply by analogy or in a suppletory character, especially on matters that the Labor Code or the NLRC Rules of Procedure do not fully address.

III. General Rule: No New Evidence on Appeal

As a rule, appeals are decided on the basis of the evidence submitted before the Labor Arbiter. The rationale for this limitation is twofold:

Orderly Procedure and Preventing Surprise
- Allowing a “free-for-all” submission of new evidence at the appellate stage defeats the purpose of the hearing before the Labor Arbiter, where the parties are expected to present all their evidence.
Efficiency and Speedy Labor Justice
- Expeditious disposition of labor cases is a policy priority. Introducing new evidence on appeal as a matter of course may prolong resolution.

Because of these considerations, the NLRC—by its own rules—bars the admission of additional evidence on appeal except under certain limited and justifiable circumstances.

IV. Exception: Newly Discovered or Previously Unavailable Evidence

A. Requirements for Newly Discovered Evidence

When a party insists on the admissibility of a witness affidavit for the first time on appeal, the NLRC usually applies the judicially recognized test for newly discovered evidence (by analogy to Rule 37 or 45 of the Rules of Court). The Supreme Court has enumerated conditions for “newly discovered evidence”:

Evidence was discovered after trial or proceedings below;
It could not have been discovered and produced at the trial or hearing with reasonable diligence; and
If presented, it would probably alter the outcome of the case.

Hence, a witness affidavit that merely recapitulates or corroborates facts already in evidence, or that could have been produced before the Labor Arbiter through the exercise of due diligence, is typically disallowed.

B. Affidavit Must Contain Material and Relevant Facts

Another point is materiality: the affidavit must allege new and relevant facts that could significantly affect the outcome of the case. If the affidavit is merely cumulative or corroborative, or if it refers to issues already established or admitted, then the NLRC may consider it unnecessary or immaterial and deny its admission.

C. Due Diligence Test

While the NLRC’s procedural rules are more relaxed than those in regular courts, parties must still show that they exerted reasonable diligence in securing evidence during the Labor Arbiter stage. Failure to do so—without a valid justification—may warrant the rejection of the “new” affidavit.

D. Additional Considerations Under Labor Law

Because labor dispute resolution strives to serve the ends of substantial justice, the NLRC and courts may be more flexible in admitting new evidence if it is shown that:

There is clear and compelling reason (e.g., newly discovered witnesses or documents).
The integrity of due process was not subverted.
The opposing party is given opportunity to respond or rebut.

Ultimately, the Commission retains the sound discretion to decide whether the new affidavit meets the threshold for admissibility.

V. Hearsay and Technical Rules of Evidence

A. Relaxed Rules in Labor Cases

Philippine labor tribunals are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence. Therefore, an affidavit—ordinarily hearsay if the affiant is not presented for cross-examination—might still be considered by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to the extent that it assists in determining the facts with reasonable certainty.

B. Right to Cross-Examine

However, the Supreme Court has continuously emphasized that fundamental fairness and due process require that the opposing party be given an opportunity to challenge the truthfulness and credibility of an affidavit. If a witness affidavit is submitted belatedly on appeal, and the other party has no prior chance to cross-examine the witness, its evidentiary value may be substantially diminished. The affidavit will be weighed prudently in light of the entire record.

C. When Affidavit Is Uncontroverted

If the other party fails to specifically refute or impeach the contents of the new affidavit, or if the parties stipulate on certain facts, the NLRC may give credence to the affidavit if it appears credible and consistent with established facts or other evidence. Nonetheless, the better rule is that witnesses be presented below whenever feasible, so that the affidavit can be tested under cross-examination.

VI. Jurisprudential Guidance

Philippine Supreme Court decisions shed further light on the matter:

Emphasis on Substantial Justice
- The Court has repeatedly ruled that labor officials should aim at resolving labor disputes in the most equitable and expedient manner. While new evidence (including affidavits) is generally disfavored on appeal, if it clearly serves the interest of justice, it may be admitted provided the conditions for newly discovered evidence are met.
Strict vs. Liberal Application of the Rules
- Some rulings underscore that rules of procedure are instruments to promote justice, not to defeat it. Thus, in exceptional cases, the NLRC may adopt a liberal stance. Conversely, in the absence of any reasonable justification for failing to present the witness affidavit earlier, the NLRC is likewise justified in excluding the affidavit.
Materiality and Potential Effect on Outcome
- Courts will check whether the late-submitted affidavit is likely to change the final disposition of the case. If it does not, the appeal may be decided without admitting the affidavit.

VII. Practical Tips for Litigants

Present All Evidence at the Earliest Stage
- To avoid complications, always submit witness affidavits and other vital documentary evidence during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Delayed submission typically requires a stringent justification.
Invoke “Newly Discovered Evidence” Properly
- If genuinely new evidence emerges after the arbitral stage, a party should promptly explain why it was unobtainable before. Show the NLRC concrete steps taken to discover or secure the evidence.
Ensure Materiality
- The affidavit must address a pivotal point in the case—something that could change the outcome. Merely cumulative evidence is rarely admitted.
Afford Opposing Party Opportunity to Respond
- Where feasible, ensure that the opposing party is given a chance to rebut or cross-examine the newly identified witness. This diminishes due process objections and increases the likelihood the affidavit will be admitted.
Highlight the Policy of Substantial Justice
- In pressing for the affidavit’s acceptance, emphasize how labor justice and fairness would be served by its consideration, while also acknowledging the need for fundamental due process.

VIII. Conclusion

The admissibility of a newly proffered witness affidavit on appeal before the NLRC hinges on balancing two important objectives: (1) the expeditious and orderly resolution of labor disputes, and (2) the equitable consideration of all relevant facts to serve substantial justice. Although labor tribunals have more flexibility in matters of evidence, the general rule remains that no new evidence should be allowed on appeal unless it meets the recognized criteria for newly discovered evidence or is otherwise justified by compelling reasons.

In practice, parties should endeavor to present all testimonies and affidavits during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. When genuinely new or previously unavailable evidence arises, thorough compliance with the rules—demonstrating that such evidence is both material and could not have been reasonably obtained earlier—will greatly increase the chances of the NLRC admitting and appreciating that affidavit in rendering a just decision.

References (non-exhaustive):

Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442, as amended).
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended.
Various Supreme Court decisions (e.g., principles on newly discovered evidence from civil procedure applied in labor cases by analogy).
Applicable sections of the Rules of Court (suppletory).

This discussion is for informational purposes and should not be taken as a substitute for specific legal advice. Those confronted with actual cases are advised to consult legal counsel or refer to updated rulings, as policies and jurisprudence can evolve.