Posted by: Riyani Marie M. Nartea on 18 july 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
After failed negotiations with Sime Darby Employees Association for the remaining two years of their CBA, Sime Darby Pilipinas implemented a lockout against all the hourly employees of its tire factory on the ground of sabotage and work slowdown. The Union contested the lockout before the DOLE-NLRC. Subsequently the company decided to sell its tire manufacturing assets and close the business. As a result, all employees were terminated, including the petitioners. The company later found a buyer of its assets and business in Goodyear Philippines, Inc..
Petitioners filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal before the DOLE and later a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP), both cases eventually consolidated. The labor arbiter ordered the parties to submit their respective memorandum but instead of doing this, the Union filed an Appeal Memorandum with a petition for injunction and/or a TRO before the NLRC. The labor arbiter later dismissed the case for lack of merit.
Petitioners reiterate that they were denied due process when they were dismissed right on the day they were handed down their termination letters, without the benefit of the thirty (30)-day notice as required by law and that labor arbiter deprived petitioners of the chance to present their evidence during the formal trial.
ISSUES:
Whether or not petitioners were deprived by the labor arbiter of the right to a presentation of evidence in a formal trial?
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed due to lack of due process and also as a consequence of an illegal lockout?
HELD:
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed due to lack of due process and also as a consequence of an illegal lockout?
HELD:
1. No, Petitioners argument that had the labor arbiter allowed respondents to present their evidence during the formal trial, the Decision would have been different, cannot be sustained. As previously stated, the labor arbiter enjoys wide discretion in determining whether there is a need for a formal hearing in a given case, and he or she may use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of each case without regard to technicalities. With or without a formal hearing, the labor arbiter may still adequately decide the case since he can resolve the issues on the basis of the pleadings and other documentary evidence previously submitted. When the parties submitted their position papers and other pertinent pleadings to the labor arbiter, it is understood/given/deemed that they have included therein all the pieces of evidence needed to establish their respective cases.
More importantly, well-settled is the rule that hearings and resolutions of labor disputes are not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in the regular courts of law. Technical rules of procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor problem.
More importantly, well-settled is the rule that hearings and resolutions of labor disputes are not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence and procedure observed in the regular courts of law. Technical rules of procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character, for instance, when there is a need to attain substantial justice and an expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor problem.
2. No, Petitioners claim that the alleged failure of the company to notify them of their termination renders their dismissal illegal, and thus they should be reinstated and paid with full backwages or given separation pay, following the Court's ruling in Serrano v. Court of Appeals. The argument does not hold. The ruling in Serrano has already been superseded by the case of Agabon v. National Labor Relation Commission. The Agabon enunciates the new doctrine that if the dismissal is for just cause but statutory due process was not observed, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
But in any case, the issue of illegal dismissal had already been resolved by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which both found that the company had an authorized cause and had complied with the requirements of due process when it dismissed petitioners.
But in any case, the issue of illegal dismissal had already been resolved by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, which both found that the company had an authorized cause and had complied with the requirements of due process when it dismissed petitioners.
