367 Phil. 584
KAPUNAN, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent Pagdanan Timber Products, Inc. to pay all complainants the following:In its appeal to the NLRC, PTPI alleged that it did not receive the order of the Labor Arbiter, which required the parties to submit their position paper, on time. According to PTPI, the order "was sent by registered mail to the remote municipality of San Vicente, Palawan and addressed to herein respondent whose mill site is around sixty kilometers from the nearest post office."[2] PTPI thus argued that it was deprived due process.
1. Unpaid wages ......................... P118,422.00
2. Separation pay ........................ 259,028.00
3. Credit Union Shares .................. 102,000.00
4. Cooperative Shares ................... 22,813.00
5. Unused Annual Leave ................ 16,616.50
6. 13th month pay ........................ 11,512.00
Total Claims ........................ 528,591.50
All claims for payment of legal interests, moral damages and attorney's fees are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[1]
Firstly, appellants were given all the opportunities to argue and present evidence in denying complainants claims against them. The instant complaint originated from the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment where all efforts were exerted to settle the case, but to no avail. Respondent company was represented by its Administrative Manager who only gave a round around strategy in delaying the resolution of the case. This prompted the DOLE Regional Office to endorse the case to the Regional Arbitration Branch of this office for compulsory arbitration.On March 20, 1996, PTPI filed its motion for reconsideration, citing the following grounds:
Secondly, appellants' allegation that they were denied due process when the Labor Arbiter below decided the case based solely on complainants' position paper, without giving the appellants the opportunity to present their side is a baseless contention. The records show that appellants, through its Administrative Manager, were accommodated through and through during the conciliation conferences in an effort to reach an amicable settlement.
In addition, appellants were duly notified that the case was being endorsed to the Arbitration Branch of this office for compulsory arbitration. Appellants' allegation that they did not receive the copy of the Order of the Labor Arbiter submitting the case for resolution on time is hazy. It is of public notice that receipt of registered mails can be delayed. Appellants' allegation of the inability to get the order on time vis-à-vis:There was no Position Paper on the part of respondent. True. The reason is that the Labor Arbiter's Order of March 21, 1995 (which was sent by registered mail to the remote municipality of San Vicente, Palawan and addressed to herein respondent whose millsite is around sixty (60) kilometers from the nearest post office) requiring the parties to submit their respective Position Papers was not received by respondent Pagdanan Timber Products, Inc. on time.is a very shallow alibi. How then can they explain why they were able to receive a copy of the assailed decision in so short and reasonable period of time and perfect an appeal thereon within the prescriptive period?
Thirdly, the Memorandum of Understanding does not provide for the condition for the payment of the salaries and other benefits of the complainants but rather, a directive that salaries and other benefits due to the employees must be preferred over all other claims and charges against respondent company.
Lastly, that while the closure of the company is done as a necessary consequence of the implementation of the law, the same (closure) does not exempt respondent company from its obligation to its employees insofar as payment of separation pay is concerned. Respondents-appellants even up to the level of appeal, never alleged serious business losses, as a consequence of closure.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Motions for Reconsideration. - Motions for Reconsideration of any order, resolution or decision of the Commission shall not be entertained, except when based on palpable or errors, provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the order, resolution or decision, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished within the reglementary period, the adverse party, and provided further that only one such motion from the same party shall be entertained.We agree with petitioner that the NLRC violated the above provision not so because it ignored the one-motion-per-party rule but because it circumvented the requirement that parties must file their motions for reconsideration within "ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the order, resolution or decision." Entertaining such supplemental motion for reconsideration allows the parties before the NLRC to submit their motions for reconsideration on a piecemeal basis. This would defeat the rule's clear intent to facilitate the speedy disposition of cases. Such intent is apparent from the limited duration of 10 days by which the parties may submit their motions for reconsideration. Thus, in Lamsan Trading, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr.,[5] we held:
Rules of procedure and practice of the Ministry of Labor provide periods within which to do certain acts such as to file a motion for reconsideration. Such periods are imposed with a view to prevent needless delays and to ensure the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rule is both mandatory and imperative (FJR Garments Industries v. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA 216). Only strong considerations of equity, which are missing in this case, will lead this Court to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice.Delays cannot be countenanced in the settlement of labor disputes. The disputes may involve no less than the livelihood of an employee and that of loved ones who are dependent upon him for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education. It may as well involve the survival of a business or an industry.[6]
The New NLRC Rules should be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution and the labor Code of the Philippines and to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious, and inexpensive settlement of labor dispute (Sec. 2, Rule New NLRC Rules).We fail to see how private respondent was denied due process or why the case has to be remanded to the Labor Arbiter. Granting that private respondent indeed did not receive the Order of the Labor Arbiter requiring the parties to submit their position papers on time, such defect was cured when private respondent filed its appeal with the NLRC. After all, the essence of due process is merely that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[9]
As correctly articulated by the respondent, the decision of the Labor Arbiter, which the Commission affirmed is based on the allegations of the complainants. The Labor Arbiter in his decision, held as follows:"The entire allegations of the complainants were not disputed and controverted by the respondent when they kept silent and did not submit any Position Paper and supporting documentary evidence when required to do so. Hence, the reasons stated in the Position Paper of complainants are adopted as justifications by this Office in awarding to all complainants their monetary claims mentioned earlier."Under his decision, the Labor Arbiter decreed that the respondents are liable to the complainants in the amount of P528,591.50.
Closer review of the records reveal that by virtue of his Order dated March 2, 1995, the Labor Arbiter did require the parties to submit their position papers on May 22, 1995. It appears that on May 22, 1995, no appearance was entered for the respondent. The respondent failed to submit its position paper. What the Labor Arbiter did was to consider the case submitted for resolution as of May 22, 1995, at which time only the complainants' position paper was filed on record.
Considering the nature of the monetary claims, the Labor Arbiter was required under the NLRC Rules should have determined whether there was a need for a formal hearing; or he should have asked clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any, from any party or witness. Considering the nature of his award for unpaid wages, separation pay, credit union shares, cooperative shares, unused annual leave and 13th month pay, the Labor Arbiter should not have simply relied on the complainants' allegations or he should not have immediately considered complainants' own "reasons stated in the position paper as justification in awarding to all complainants their monetary claims." In other words, it is still incumbent on the Labor Arbiter to make his own review of the evidence and conclusions and the reasons therefor.
Accordingly, in line with the higher interest of justice, the case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter, for further proceedings whereby the parties be afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence in a formal trial or hearing, without delay.[8]
xxx. Delay in most instances, gives the employers more opportunity not only to prepare even ingenious defenses, what with well-paid talented lawyers they can afford, but even to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the workers, to the point that not infrequently the latter either give up or compromise for less than what is due them.Finally, the failure of petitioners to file a motion for the reconsideration of the resolution of the NLRC remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter did not preclude them from filing a petition for certiorari in this Court. As our decision today demonstrates, the challenged resolution is a nullity and excuses such failure.[15]