G.R. No. L-14201; May 31, 1960
OLEGARIO BRITO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and DENCIA’S KITCHENETTE WORKERS UNION, respondents.

FACTS

In November 1957, the Dencia’s Kitchenette Workers Union filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) against Olegario Brito, seeking differential pay and overtime compensation for its members. Brito moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and lack of cause of action. The CIR deferred action on the motion until after evidence was received. Brito then filed an answer denying the allegations and reiterating his defenses, adding that he only became the owner of Dencia’s Kitchenette in 1954. The case was set for hearing on January 17, 1958. Neither Brito nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, and the CIR allowed the union to present its evidence. Brito’s counsel, Atty. Antonio Gaw, explained that he had been sick and confined to bed for several days before the hearing and only learned of it on January 20, 1958, upon returning to his office. He attributed the failure to appear to excusable negligence, as his clerk had misplaced the notice of hearing and failed to inform any lawyer in the office due to a heavy workload. On January 21, 1958, Brito filed a motion to be allowed to cross-examine the union’s witnesses and present his evidence. The CIR denied this motion on July 4, 1958, and a motion for reconsideration was also denied by the court en banc, with one judge dissenting. Brito then petitioned the Supreme Court to set aside the CIR’s orders and allow him to present his defense.

ISSUE

Whether the CIR committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying Brito’s motion to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence, given the circumstances of his and his counsel’s failure to appear at the hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brito. The Court found that the failure of Brito and his counsel to appear at the hearing was due to excusable negligence. The notice of hearing was misplaced by counsel’s clerk amid other cases, and counsel was sick and confined to bed during the relevant period. These circumstances constituted excusable negligence, warranting relief. The Court emphasized that the CIR, under Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended, should act according to justice, equity, and substantial merits without strict regard to technicalities. Since Brito’s motion was filed promptly before judgment and a slight delay would not materially prejudice the union, fairness and justice required that he be given an opportunity to defend on the merits. The Court cited precedent that such a continuance aligns with fair play. Accordingly, the CIR’s order and resolution were set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIR to allow Brito to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. No costs were awarded.