G.R. No. 129418. September 10, 1999.
RODRIGO G. HABANA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and HYUNDAI ENGINEERING COMPANY, LIMITED, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodrigo G. Habana was hired in January 1995 by respondent Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation (OMANFIL) to work for its foreign principal, respondent Hyundai Engineering Company, Ltd. (HYUNDAI), in Kuwait under a two-year contract. On 6 February 1996, after one year, HYUNDAI terminated his employment. Habana returned to the Philippines and, with another dismissed employee, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Summons required respondents to file an answer within ten days. Instead of an answer, respondents filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars two days beyond the period, alleging the complaint lacked a sufficient factual narration. Habana moved to declare respondents in default. The parties agreed to submit these motions for the Labor Arbiter’s consideration. On 11 June 1996, without waiting for a resolution, Habana filed his bill of particulars, which he adopted as his position paper, and furnished respondents a copy. On 5 July 1996, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Habana, noting respondents had not submitted their answer/position paper. The NLRC, on appeal, vacated the decision and remanded the case, holding respondents were denied due process. Habana filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether private respondents OMANFIL and HYUNDAI were denied due process when the Labor Arbiter decided the case solely on the basis of the position paper and supporting documents submitted by Habana.

RULING

Yes, private respondents were denied due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s resolution. The Labor Arbiter’s procedure left no opportunity for respondents to be heard. After the single conciliatory conference where parties agreed to submit their pending motions for resolution, no order or notice was received by respondents regarding the disposition of those motions, nor were they required to file a position paper or informed the case was submitted for decision. They received only the adverse decision. The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence. While Labor Arbiters have discretion and are not bound by strict rules, that discretion must be exercised within due process confines. The Labor Arbiter should have ruled on the pending motions or directed respondents to submit their position paper. Employers are equally entitled to due process. The petition was dismissed and the NLRC’s order to remand the case for further proceedings was affirmed.