GR L 48736; (April, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-48736-37 April 19, 1984
EM TRANSPORT, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JACOBO C. CLAVE, Presidential Executive Assistant, and THE HONORABLE RONALDO B. ZAMORA, Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, respectively, of the Office of the President of the Philippines, THE HONORABLE BLAS OPLE, Secretary of Labor, and ROMELTO ZAGADO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a complaint filed by taxi drivers of EM Transport, Inc., led by Romelto Zagado, for non-payment of the emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) under Presidential Decree No. 525. The drivers worked under a commission basis, later changed to a “boundary system” pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The company argued that drivers under this system, having no fixed salary and being uncovered by the minimum wage law, were not entitled to the allowance. The Officer-in-Charge of Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor issued an order granting the ECOLA claim without a formal hearing. This order was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor and subsequently by the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, whose decision was sustained by the Presidential Executive Assistant.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether taxi drivers paid under the “boundary system” are entitled to the emergency cost of living allowance under P.D. No. 525. A secondary procedural issue is whether the order granting the allowance without a formal hearing constituted a denial of procedural due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the award of ECOLA to the drivers. On the substantive issue, the Court held that P.D. No. 525 is mandatory and applies to all employees, irrespective of their method of wage payment. The Implementing Rules explicitly state coverage extends to all employees “regardless of their position, designation or employment status, and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid.” The “boundary system” is merely a method of compensation and does not alter the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the drivers are unequivocally covered.
On the procedural due process claim, the Court ruled no denial occurred. Citing Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, the Court reiterated that due process is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to be heard. The records showed the company filed motions, appeals, and memoranda, actively participating at every administrative level. The absence of a formal trial-type hearing does not violate due process in administrative proceedings where the party was not deprived of the chance to present its case. The directive for the Labor Department to receive further evidence for precise computation of individual awards further ensured fairness. The petition, lacking merit, was dismissed.