G.R. No. 106170 July 30, 1993
PACIFIC TIMBER EXPORT CORPORATION, and/or CARLOS B. TERAOKA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER JOAQUIN A. TANODRA, APOLITO BAUZON, DIOSDADO CATABAY, ROMUALDO MAGTANGOB, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On June 10, 1990, several employees of Pacific Timber Export Corporation (PATECO) filed a complaint with the Department of Local Government regarding the non-remittance of their Social Security Service contributions. On June 22, 1990, PATECO issued memorandum-circulars terminating the services of eleven of these complainants. On November 13, 1990, three of the dismissed employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor, which was granted by Executive Labor Arbiter Antonio C. Pido on December 17, 1990. On that same date, the remaining complainants filed an action with the Regional Arbiter alleging illegal termination as a result of their DILG complaint. On April 30, 1991, Labor Arbiter Joaquin Tanodra rendered a decision ordering PATECO to pay separation benefits and back wages. PATECO appealed to the NLRC, mainly on the ground of denial of due process, arguing that after the submission of position papers, no notice was given that hearings had been terminated, and they only learned of a scheduled hearing on April 10, 1991, upon receiving the decision. They also contended that the notice for the April 10 hearing was served on the company, not their counsel, whose address had been furnished on April 2, 1991. PATECO further insisted that some employees voluntarily resigned and others were dismissed for just causes like insubordination and abandonment. The NLRC dismissed the appeal, prompting PATECO to file the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners were denied due process in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not denied due process. The holding of a formal trial is discretionary on the Labor Arbiter and not a matter of right for the parties, especially since the private respondents had already presented their documentary evidence. The Labor Arbiter gave the parties eight opportunities to present their sides and adduce evidence, in addition to the submission of position papers. The non-service of the notice for the last hearing on the petitioners’ counsel was not the Labor Arbiter’s fault, as notice was sent by registered mail to the counsel’s address on March 26, 1991, prior to the April 10 hearing, and the counsel had attended three of the eight scheduled hearings without prior complaint about the service of notices. The petitioners failed to adduce evidence to substantiate the claimed just causes for dismissal, as the burden of proof rests on the employer. The Labor Arbiter correctly ruled against further hearings considering the petitioners’ counsel’s poor attendance record and to avoid burdening the workers. The subsequent appeal to the NLRC and the petition before the Supreme Court afforded the petitioners more than sufficient opportunity to be heard, rectifying any procedural flaws. The petition was dismissed for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.