Saturday, October 04, 2008 Due process By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENTS National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU) and Mariveles Apparel Corp. Labor Union (MACLU) filed a case for illegal dismissal against Mariveles Apparel Corp. (MAC). In their position paper, respondents moved to implead petitioner lawyer Antonio Carag in his official capacity as chairman of the board of MAC.
Labor Arbiter Isabel Ortiguerra, in a decision, granted the motion and declared Carag solidarily liable with MAC to respondents. The decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals.
Can the decision be justified?
Ruling: No.
Indisputably, there was utter absence of due process to Carag at the arbitration level. The procedure adopted by Arbiter Ortiguerra completely prevented Carag from explaining his side and presenting his evidence. This alone renders Arbiter Ortiguerra’s decision a nullity in so far as Carag is concerned.
While labor arbiters are not required to conduct a formal hearing or trial, they have no license to dispense with the basic requirements of due process, such as affording respondents the opportunity to be heard.
Here, Carag was not issued summons, not accorded a conciliatory conference, not ordered to submit a position paper, not accorded a hearing, not given an opportunity to present his evidence, and not notified that the case was submitted for resolution. Thus, we hold that Arbiter Ortiguerra’s decision is void as against Carag for utter absence of due process. It was error for the NLRC and the Court of Appeals to uphold Arbiter Ortiguerra’s decision as against Carag. (Antonio C. Carag versus NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 147590, April 2, 2007)
