GR 60952; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 60952 March 31, 1989
MRS. LEONILA L. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. DR. WILSON TAN, DANTE G. ARDIVILLA, Regional Director, MOLE, Region VII, Cebu City and ATTY. YOLANDA D. BAGUIO, as City Sheriff of Dumaguete City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonila Santiago, proprietress of L & L Santiago Optical Clinic, terminated the employment of respondent Dr. Wilson Tan, an optometrist, on December 31, 1977. Tan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Dumaguete District Labor Office scheduled hearings for investigation on April 26 and May 9, 1978. Despite due notice, Santiago and her counsel failed to appear. Based on the ex parte investigation, the hearing officer recommended Tan’s reinstatement with backwages and 13th-month pay, which the Regional Director ordered on May 18, 1978.
Santiago received the order on June 28, 1978, but filed her memorandum of appeal only on July 17, 1978, which was deemed filed out of time. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued. Over the next several years, Santiago filed multiple motions to quash the writ, leading to successive writs, suspended executions, and additional hearings. She contended that the initial investigation in her absence and the alleged disregard of her subsequently submitted affidavits constituted a denial of due process.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner was denied procedural due process in the proceedings for illegal dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The records show Santiago received notice of the scheduled hearings but deliberately chose not to attend, believing her presence was unnecessary as it was merely an “investigation.” This was a tactical error on her part; the hearing was precisely her opportunity to present evidence and refute the claim. Her voluntary absence waived this right.
Furthermore, her claim that the Regional Director disregarded her evidence is unfounded. The affidavits she submitted were dated May 20 and July 10, 1978, and were filed only on September 28, 1978—long after the final order of May 18, 1978 had been issued. The Court also noted that in the four-year span after the order became final, the execution was suspended four times and four hearings were conducted on her motions, amply affording her opportunities to be heard. Her due process rights were not violated; she was given notice and multiple opportunities, which she forfeited by her own inaction and subsequent dilatory tactics. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.