G.R. No. L-48907 & 49035 December 19, 1981
SEVERINO TAJONERA and/or RINO’s SUPER CLUB AND RESTAURANT, petitioners, vs. FERNANDO LAMAROZA, INOCENCIO CABALES, FEDERICO SANDOVAL, JOSE TUANO, LOLITO ESPINOSA, RUDY CANTOJAS, DOMINGO SAGARIO, SIMPLICIO CORNEL, PONCIANO SABIO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, Severino Tajonera and Rino’s Super Club and Restaurant, were sued by their employee-respondents for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and various monetary claims. The cases were consolidated before the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor. During the initial hearing, both parties agreed that respondents would submit their position paper by August 9, 1976, and petitioners would submit their answer on the next hearing date, August 12. Respondents submitted a joint affidavit detailing their dismissal allegedly due to union activities, illegal deductions, and other labor violations.
On the agreed hearing date of August 12, petitioners and their counsel failed to appear and did not submit any answer or position paper. Consequently, the Labor Officer issued an order on October 4, 1976, finding the dismissals illegal due to union activity and lack of prior clearance, and ordered reinstatement with full backwages. The monetary claims were referred to another section for computation. Petitioners appealed, claiming they were denied due process as they never received respondents’ position paper and that the order was an “incomplete judgment.” The appeal was denied. Petitioners later executed a compromise agreement admitting liability but failed to comply, instead appealing to the Office of the President, which affirmed the labor authorities.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioners were denied due process. A secondary issue is whether the Labor Officer’s order of October 4, 1976, was a void “incomplete judgment” for resolving the reinstatement aspect but referring the monetary claims for separate determination.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners. On due process, the Court held it was not denied. Petitioners had agreed to the procedural schedule but chose not to appear at the hearing or submit their evidence. Due process requires only an opportunity to be heard, not that the party actually avails itself of that opportunity. By their voluntary inaction despite notice and agreement, petitioners forfeited their right to present evidence and cannot later complain of a deprivation.
On the nature of the order, the Court clarified it was a valid partial judgment, not an incomplete one. Under the Rules of Court, when a case involves multiple claims, a court may render a final decision on one claim while deferring resolution on others. The October 4 order finally disposed of the illegal dismissal and reinstatement issues, which were distinct from the detailed computation of specific monetary claims like overtime and holiday pay. A partial judgment is immediately executory. Therefore, the order was valid and enforceable. Given that the business had ceased operations, the Court modified the award from reinstatement to separation pay. The appeal bonds posted by petitioners were ordered applied to satisfy the monetary awards due to the respondents.