G.R. No. L-81805 May 31, 1988
VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO., INC. and COMNINOS BROS., petitioners, vs. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), EDGAR T. BUNYOG, VEDASTO NAVARRO, EUGENIO CAPALAD, RAUL TUMASIS, ANTONIO TANIOAN, CELESTINO CASON, DANILO MANELA & ROBERTO GENESIS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Var-Orient Shipping Co., Inc. and Comninos Bros. filed a complaint with the POEA against private respondents, who were crew members of the MPV “Silver Reefer,” for alleged violations of their employment contracts. The petitioners claimed these violations led to the vessel’s interdiction by the International Transport Workers’ Federation in Germany, causing them damages. After the issues were joined, a hearing was held on March 4, 1987, where the parties agreed to submit their respective position papers and thereafter consider the case submitted for decision. Only the private respondents submitted their position paper.
The POEA Administrator rendered a decision on September 9, 1987, dismissing the complaint against most crew members but ordering the petitioners to pay specific amounts to certain respondents, including salary for the unserved portion of a contract to Edgar Bunyog and attorney’s fees. A copy of this decision was sent by registered mail to the petitioners’ counsel, Attorney Francisco B. Figura, and was received by the receptionist at his office address on September 21, 1987. Attorney Figura, however, claimed he never personally received it. The petitioners alleged they only learned of the decision when a writ of execution was served on November 20, 1987. They filed an urgent motion to recall the writ, arguing the decision was not yet final and executory due to lack of receipt, which the Administrator denied.

ISSUE

Whether the POEA Administrator committed grave abuse of discretion by: (1) rendering the decision without a formal hearing, thereby violating due process; and (2) issuing a writ of execution premised on a decision allegedly not received by petitioners’ counsel.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court held that due process in administrative proceedings is satisfied by an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a formal trial. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to explain one’s side. Here, the parties had agreed during the March 4, 1987 hearing to submit memoranda and then have the case decided. The petitioners failed to submit their position paper despite this agreement. They also did not oppose the private respondents’ subsequent “Motion to Resolve” or “Motion for Execution,” both of which were furnished to their counsel. Their inaction and failure to allege possession of additional material evidence negated any claim of denial of due process.
Regarding the finality of the decision and the writ of execution, the Court found the petitioners’ claim of non-receipt unconvincing. Service of the decision to the receptionist at the counsel’s recorded office address constituted valid service. Attorney Figura’s affidavit of non-receipt was deemed self-serving, especially absent a counter-affidavit from the receptionist explaining her actions. Therefore, the POEA Administrator correctly ruled that the decision had been properly served and had become final and executory. The award to respondent Bunyog was also upheld, as the Administrator found he did not participate in the act warranting dismissal, making the payment of his unserved salaries justified. The temporary restraining order was lifted.