G.R. No. 106916 September 3, 1999
MASAGANA CONCRETE PRODUCTS, KINGSTONE CONCRETE PRODUCTS and ALFREDO CHUA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RUBEN MARIÑAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Masagana Concrete Products and Kingstone Concrete Products are business establishments owned and managed by petitioner Alfredo Chua. Private respondent Ruben Mariñas was hired as a truck helper in May 1983 and worked continuously until November 30, 1990. On that date, Chua accused Mariñas of tampering with a “vale sheet” and ordered him to leave the premises. When Mariñas returned the next day, he was not allowed to enter. His subsequent written request to return to work was ignored, and he discovered he had been replaced and his time card removed. On December 7, 1990, Mariñas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. Notifications and summons for the hearings before the Labor Arbiter were sent by registered mail to petitioners’ business address. Petitioners failed to appear at the scheduled hearings on January 16, February 1, February 21, and March 11, 1991, despite notices. The Labor Arbiter deemed their non-appearance as a failure to controvert Mariñas’s claims and rendered a decision on June 15, 1991, finding the dismissal unjustified and ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the decision on July 21, 1992, but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing they were deprived of due process due to invalid service of summons, that the Labor Arbiter did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, and that Mariñas had abandoned his job.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioners were deprived of due process.
2. Whether the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners.
3. Whether the NLRC erred in its application of procedural rules.
4. Whether the petitioners have a meritorious defense (i.e., that Mariñas abandoned his job).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners were not deprived of due process. Service of summons and notices by registered mail to the correct business address, as shown by registry return cards, was valid under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. The petitioners’ claim that the notices were received by “impostors” was unsupported by evidence. Their repeated failure to appear at hearings, despite due notice, constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the Labor Arbiter validly acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioners through the proper service of summons. On the third issue, the NLRC correctly applied its procedural rules, particularly the provision that allows a case to be deemed submitted for resolution upon the respondent’s failure to appear despite notice. On the fourth issue, the Court found the defense of abandonment unmeritorious. Abandonment requires a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment, which was not present here, as Mariñas immediately sought to return to work after being ordered out. His filing of the complaint shortly after his dismissal negated any intent to abandon. The NLRC decision was affirmed.