Labor Law, NLRC Procedure, Illegal Dismissal
FACTS:
Sime Darby Pilipinas (the Company) declared and implemented a lockout against all the hourly employees of its tire factory on the ground of sabotage and work slowdown. This after failed negotiations with Sime Darby Employees Association (the Union) for the remaining two years of their CBA. 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. It found the lockout valid and legal, and justified by the incidents of continued work slowdown, mass absences, and consistent low production output, high rate of waste and scrap tires and machine breakdown. It also considered the mass termination of all the employees valid as an authorized termination of employment due to closure of the establishment, the company having complied with due process.
Petitioners appealed the labor arbiter’s Decision to the NLRC which was also dismissed for lack of merit. It also ruled that that the labor arbiter could not have lost jurisdiction over the case when petitioners appealed the former’s order since the order was interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed separately. In the Court of Appeals, the petition was similarly denied.
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 invoke the Court’s ruling in Serrano v. NLRC; that the labor arbiter had lost jurisdiction over the issue when have already perfected their appeal to the NLRC; and that labor arbiter deprived petitioners of the chance to present their evidence during the formal trial.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the labor arbiter has lost jurisdiction over the Union’s petition due to the appeal on the labor arbiter’s order that the Union filed before the NLRC?
2. Whether or not petitioners were deprived by the labor arbiter of the right to a presentation of evidence in a formal trial?
3. Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed due to lack of due process and also as a consequence of an illegal lockout?
HELD:
Petition DENIED. Decision affirmed as the labor arbiter never lost its jurisdiction to decide on the case and has decided the case without grave abuse of discretion. The Court gives due credence to the factual findings of the labor arbiter and NLRC.
The order by the labor arbiter to the parties to submit their respective memorandum is in the nature of an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is not appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the merits for a contrary rule would delay the administration of justice and unduly burden the courts. Nor could the Court finds any grave abuse of discretion on the labor arbiter’s part. For one, the holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right. The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC grants the labor arbiter wide latitude to determine, after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memoranda, if there is need for a formal trial or hearing.
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. 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. A formal hearing is not compulsory in consonance with the need for speedy disposition of labor cases. If it were necessary, the parties may then willfully withhold their evidence and disclose the same only during the formal hearing, thus creating surprises which could merely complicate the issues and prolong the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settling labor disputes.
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.
(Copyright 2008 - This original digest of a Supreme Court case may be copied, distributed or modified in any medium provided you acknowledge barops-philjuris.blogspot.com.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment