Republic of the Philippines Department of Labor and Employment NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Quezon City
PEDRO DE LUNA, Complainant-Appellee,
NLRC CA No. 987238-12 NLRC NCR CN 00-0898757 Present:
- versus -
Santos, E., Chairperson Nicanor, A., Comm. Reyes, B., Comm. Promulgated: August 2, 2012
ACME CORPORATION and JUAN MALIGALIG, President, Respondent-Appellant, x ---------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT It is a law that hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. (Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849). This is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the National Labor Relation Commission, dated August 2, 2012, the dispositive of which, reads: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to file the same within the reglementary period.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The respondents received a copy of the Decision on June 29, 2012 (Record, p.35). However, the present appeal was filed only on July 10, 2012 (Record, p.45) or one (1) day beyond the ten reglementary period to file an appeal, contrary to what is provided for under Article 223 of the Labor Code. In this case, record shows that the respondents were directed by the Labor Arbiter to submit their position paper on May 8, 2012 (Record, p.10). On the same date, instead of submitting their position paper, respondents moved, and were allowed, until May 18, 2012 to submit their position paper (Record, p.12). despite the extension given, respondents failed to submit their position paper without any justifiable explanation. Hence, following Audion Electric , considering that respondents were given ample opportunity to submit their position paper, respondents cannot claim that they were denied due process.
MEMORANDUM Page 2 ISSUES I. FIRST ISSUE
Whether respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the petitioner were not deprived of due process? II. SECOND ISSUE Whether respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner failed to file its appeal within the reglementary period?
ARGUMENTS I. FIRST ISSUE Whether respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the petitioners were not deprived of due process?
In the case of Ermita Hotel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849, the Supreme Court explained the concept of due process. It ruled that It is a law that hears before it condemns which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Based on the above-cited case, the public respondent commission erred in not reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter. It is very clear from the records of the case that the petitioner was deprived of due process. Petitioner was not given the chance to present its defense and evidence and the opportunity to be heard. The Labor Arbiter rendered the questioned decision in wanton disregard to the fundamental rights granted by no less than the constitution to every individual, that is the right to be heard or the right of due process. In the case of Tajonero v. Lamarosa, 110 SCRA 438, the Supreme Court said that the essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence, one may have in support of ones defense. To be heard does not only mean verbal arguments in court, one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. Petitioner was not given by the Labor Arbiter the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or by pleadings. It is clear that the petitioner was not accorded due process.
II. SECOND ISSUE Whether respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner failed to file its appeal within the reglementary period?
MEMORANDUM Page 3
Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executor unless appealed to the commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders. In this case, the petitioner submits that it indeed filed its appeal one (1) day beyond the reglementary period to file an appeal, contrary to what is provided for under Article 223 of the Labor Code. However, the case of Buenaobra vs. Lim King Guan, the Supreme Court declared that it is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making the judgment final and executor. However technically should not allow to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have allowed appeals from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the reglamentary period in the interest of justice. The petitioner humbly submits that since its appeal was filed only one (1) day beyond the reglementary period to file an appeal, the same should have been considered by the respondent commission, dispensing with the period to file an appeal all in the interest of substantial justice. Article 221 of the Labor Code mandates also that in cases before Labor Arbiter and NLRC, they shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. Based on the above-cited article of the Labor Code, Labor Arbiter and NLRC are mandated to disregard technicalities all in the interest of justice. For the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to properly ascertain the facts of every case, it can disregard technicalities to give life and spirit to the mandate of the law in the interest of justice. The NLRC should have considered the belated filing of appeal by the petitioner dispensing the jurisdictional requirement just to properly evaluate the claims and defenses of both parties in order to arrive at a verdict that is in accordance with substantial justice. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent prays that petition for certiorari be granted. Other relief, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, September 4, 2012. (Sgd.) Atty. Fatmah Azimah C. Mapandi counsel for respondent 422San Anton St., Sampaloc, Manila PTR No. 483124; 1/2/11 IBP No. 983462; 1/2/11 Roll of Attorneys No. 8723 MCLE III No. 25672; 1/2/10
