G.R. No. 127529 December 10, 1998
PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. (Formerly Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and RENE ESTILO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Rene Estilo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against petitioner Pepsi Cola before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch. After two scheduled conferences where only Estilo’s counsel appeared, Labor Arbiter Oscar S. Uy issued an order dated March 1, 1994, directing both parties to submit their position papers and supporting evidence within twenty days, after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. Petitioner complied by submitting its position paper, which controverted Estilo’s claims and presented evidence that Estilo had voluntarily resigned after being found guilty of serious misconduct. Estilo failed to submit any position paper or evidence despite receipt of the order.
On May 10, 1995, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing Estilo’s complaint for lack of merit. Estilo appealed to the NLRC, claiming he was denied due process because the Labor Arbiter decided the case based solely on Pepsi’s position paper. The NLRC, in a resolution dated September 26, 1996, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, agreeing that Estilo was deprived of an opportunity to be heard.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent Estilo was denied due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The records substantiate that Estilo was duly accorded the opportunity to be heard. The Labor Arbiter’s order explicitly directed both parties to submit their position papers. Estilo’s counsel received this order but failed to comply. The NLRC itself, in its questioned resolution, confirmed that Estilo had over a year to file his position paper but did not. Due process simply requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, which was amply provided. Estilo, as the complainant, bore the primary burden of proving his claims, and his failure to submit his position paper constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence. The NLRC’s reliance on the Mañebo case was misplaced, as that case involved a situation where a supplemental position paper was admitted without proof of service to the opposing party. Here, there was no such surprise element. Moreover, any procedural defect was cured when the NLRC itself gave due course to Estilo’s Memorandum of Appeal, where he could have fully argued his case but failed to refute Pepsi’s evidence. Therefore, the NLRC resolutions were annulled and set aside, and the Labor Arbiter’s decision was reinstated.