G.R. No. L-44302 May 20, 1983
MARVEL BUILDING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE BLAS F. OPLE, as Secretary of Labor, HONORABLE VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., as Office-in-Charge, Regional Office No. 04, Department of Labor and IMELDA V.C. HAW, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Imelda V.C. Haw filed a verified complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Marvel Building Corporation. The case was docketed and set for a summary investigation. Due notice was sent to the petitioner’s manager via telegram, with official dispatch records confirming its transmission. On the scheduled hearing date, only the complainant, Haw, appeared. Petitioner failed to attend. Consequently, the summary investigation proceeded ex parte, with Haw presenting evidence of her employment and subsequent dismissal without the required prior clearance from the Department of Labor.
The Labor Regional Office, through Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leogardo, Jr., found the dismissal illegal due to the lack of clearance and ordered Haw’s reinstatement with back wages. Petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, alleging denial of due process due to its non-appearance, which motion was treated as an appeal. Secretary of Labor Blas Ople sustained the order. Petitioner thus filed this certiorari proceeding, arguing it was denied procedural due process as it was not given another chance to appear and present its defense, attributing its absence to excusable negligence.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was denied procedural due process in the labor proceedings leading to the reinstatement order.

RULING

No, there was no denial of due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The records, including the telegraph company’s dispatch record annexed to the Solicitor General’s Comment, substantiated that petitioner received notice of the hearing a day prior. Its failure to attend was therefore at its own peril. The essence of due process was satisfied as the notice was duly sent and received.
Moreover, petitioner was afforded a post-order opportunity to be heard when it filed its motion for reconsideration, which was duly considered as an appeal and reviewed by the Secretary of Labor. In this motion, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of excusable negligence or detail the specific meritorious defenses it intended to present, such as conclusively disproving the employer-employee relationship. The Court, citing precedent, held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures any defect in procedural due process. The dismissal is further justified by the constitutional policy protecting security of tenure, requiring strict scrutiny of dismissals without the requisite clearance. The labor officials committed no grave abuse of discretion.