G.R. No. 122389 June 19, 1997
Miguel Singson, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Miguel Singson was employed by private respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) as a Traffic Representative. On June 7, 1991, while assigned to a Japan Air Lines check-in counter, passenger Ms. Lolita Kondo lodged a complaint alleging that petitioner required her to pay US $200 for alleged excess baggage without issuing a receipt. A confrontation ensued, and a search was conducted. While the money was not found on petitioner’s person, US $265 was found in the lower panel of the check-in counter he was manning. After an administrative investigation where Ms. Kondo submitted an affidavit identifying petitioner as the one who collected the money, PAL found petitioner guilty and dismissed him from service. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, Raul T. Aquino, ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. PAL appealed to the NLRC. The Second Division of the NLRC, composed of Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay, Rogelio I. Rayala, and Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino (the same person who had decided the case as Labor Arbiter), promulgated a Resolution reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissing the complaint. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by a division with only Commissioners Calaycay and Rayala participating.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion, particularly in denying petitioner due process, when Commissioner Raul T. Aquino participated as a member of the Division in reviewing and reversing on appeal his own decision as Labor Arbiter.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC Resolution. The Court held that petitioner was denied due process when Commissioner Aquino participated in reviewing the appeal of his own decision as Labor Arbiter. Citing the requisites of procedural due process from Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, the Court emphasized that a tribunal must be constituted to give reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality. The reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is under review. Commissioner Aquino, having decided the case below, could not be considered impartial and should have inhibited himself. The composition of the NLRC Division that handed down the assailed Resolution was therefore infirm, rendering the Resolution void. This infirmity was not cured by the subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration by only two commissioners without Aquino’s participation, as the right to an impartial review begins from the filing of the appeal and entails a review by three impartial commissioners. The case was remanded to the NLRC for further proceedings.