G.R. No. 143161 ; October 2, 2002
J.D. LEGASPI CONSTRUCTION and/or JESUSITO D. LEGASPI, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HERNAN G. PAGURAYAN, and RAMIL PINSAN, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Hernan G. Pagurayan and Ramil Pinsan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of benefits against petitioner J.D. Legaspi Construction before the NLRC. They alleged they worked as electricians from August 1988 until their illegal dismissal on April 1, 1995. Petitioners ignored conciliatory conferences and failed to submit a position paper or appear at the scheduled hearing, leading the labor arbiter to allow private respondents to present evidence ex-parte. On January 2, 1997, the labor arbiter rendered a decision finding petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages and monetary awards totaling P120,755.76 each, plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC treated as an appeal and dismissed on April 2, 1997, for failure to post the required appeal bond. Petitioners’ subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed on September 3, 1997, for failure to remit the deposit for costs, and an entry of judgment was issued. On June 19, 1998, upon private respondents’ motion, the labor arbiter issued a writ of execution. The sheriff levied on petitioners’ real property after being unable to serve the writ personally or levy on personal property due to petitioners’ premises being closed and padlocked. Petitioners, through new counsel, moved to quash the writ, alleging improper notice, improper implementation, and deprivation of due process due to former counsel’s negligence. The labor arbiter denied the motion, and the NLRC affirmed this denial. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent petition for certiorari, ruling that a client is bound by the negligence of counsel and that petitioners failed to notify the labor arbiter of their change of address.

ISSUE

Whether the labor arbiter’s decision was rendered in violation of petitioners’ constitutional right to due process, making it void and not subject to execution.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that petitioners were not denied due process. Denial of due process means a total lack of opportunity to be heard. The records showed petitioners were represented by counsel at initial hearings, were served with summons and notices, received a copy of the labor arbiter’s decision, and filed numerous pleadings, motions, and appeals where the issue of due process was raised and exhaustively passed upon. The labor arbiter’s decision had long become final and executory and, therefore, immutable. The Court also found the implementation of the writ of execution proper, as the sheriff followed the NLRC Manual on Execution of Judgment by first attempting to serve the writ and levy on personal property but was prevented by petitioners’ contumacy. The Court concluded that petitioners were engaging in dilatory tactics.