SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 78212 January 22, 1990

T.H. VALDERAMA & SONS, INC. and/or ROBERTO TINSAY, Petitioners, vs. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON, DANNY GONZAGA and 276 OTHER WORKERS, Respondents.

GANCAYCO, J.:

This petition concerns the orders issued by public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. Drilon denying the appeal of petitioners and affirming the compliance order of the Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), formerly the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). ¹chanrobles virtual law library

The instant case originated from a complaint filed by Danny Gonzaga for and in behalf of 276 other employees against their employer T.H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner company) and/or Roberto Tinsay, dated January 7, 1985 before the Iligan City District Office of the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment through its Labor Standards Enforcement Unit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In their complaint, private respondents alleged failure of their employer, petitioner company, to pay their salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits due them under the applicable laws. Specifically, they are claiming their unpaid wages and emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) covering the period of November and December 1984; underpayment of their wages and ECOLA for three years; and non-payment and underpayment of their 13th month pay. ²chanrobles virtual law library

By reason of this complaint, on February 4, 1985, Labor Standards Enforcement Unit officers Somirano Macud and Cornelia Garay went to the premises of petitioner company to conduct an investigation. There, they were met by Ireneo Clarida, personnel aide of petitioner company, and were informed that the manager was not around. The following day, the said labor officers went back to petitioner company's premises but, again, were told that the manager was out. Thereupon, the labor officers conducted their investigation and came out with a report ³ which was submitted to the Regional Director of the MOLE, Region XII, Cotabato City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the said report, the following findings were made:

1. The respondents violated Sec. 11 Rule X, Book III of the Rules Implementing PD 442, as amended, requiring employers to keep their employment records in their premises;chanrobles virtual law library

4. That complainants were underpaid of their 13th month pay. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

After computing the amount of private respondents' claim, the Labor Standards Enforcement Unit set the amount of petitioner company's liability at the aggregate sum of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND & 92/100 (Pl,928,000.92).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On the basis of the aforesaid report, Assistant Regional Director Martin E. Daiz of the MOLE issued a Compliance Order ⁵ dated May 28, 1985 requiring petitioner company to pay its liability as computed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, or on July 15, 1985, private respondents filed a motion for execution of the compliance order. A day after, a writ of execution was issued by the Regional Director.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In due time, petitioners filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution and/or reconsideration dated August 21, 1986 attaching and submitting therewith some pay slips and daily time records showing that some of private respondents' claim had already been paid or otherwise satisfied. Acting on the said motion, the Regional Director reduced the amount of petitioners' liability to ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND THREE & 70/100 (P1,495,003.70).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the light of the foregoing development, the Regional Director called for a summary investigation of the controversy. Petitioners failed to appear therein, henceforth, a writ of execution was issued to satisfy the claims of private respondents.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This was appealed to the then Minister of Labor and Employment Augusto Sanchez who, in an order dated November 14, 1986, ruled against petitioner company. The dispositive portion of the order reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Compliance Order dated May 28, 1985 is hereby affirmed subject to the modification that the award therein be reduced to Pl,495,003.70 as recomputed. Let the entire records be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for enforcement of the said order which had become final and executory.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. ⁶chanrobles virtual law library

A motion for reconsideration of the immediately preceding order was filed but the same was denied by respondent Secretary Franklin Drilon on March 12, 1987. ⁷ Hence, this petition for certiorari.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The only issue posed in this instant petition is whether petitioners were denied their right to procedural due process.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Petitioners posit the affirmative. However, We find their contention bereft of merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

There is no denying that in order for this Court to sustain the findings of an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, such body must abide by the elementary rules of due process. ⁸ However, procedural due process as understood in administrative proceedings accepts of a more flexible standard as long as the proceedings were undertaken in an atmosphere of fairness and justice. ⁹chanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the record discloses that they were not denied their right to due process. They had several opportunities to present their side of the controversy but were negligent in defending their cause.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As borne by the record, after the narrative report was forwarded by the Labor Standards Enforcement Unit to the Office of the Regional Director, a hearing was scheduled on February 8, 1985 for petitioners to dispute the report thus submitted. However, on the scheduled hearing, petitioners failed to appear.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Likewise, in the summary investigation that was scheduled on May 20, 1986 for the purpose of hearing the parties relative to the amount of petitioner company's liability as recomputed, petitioners, again, did not appear despite due notice. ¹⁰chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioners vehemently deny that notices of the aforestated proceedings were ever sent to them. This failure of notice is in fact the core of their argument in their petition. ¹¹chanrobles virtual law library

At any rate, We need not discuss the truthfulness of this assertion. As the record will reveal, petitioners were afforded ample opportunity to present their side of the case. Petitioners were able to submit pay slips and daily time records to the appropriate agency of the DOLE which became the basis of the recomputation conducted. Besides, they were able to appeal the compliance order and writ of execution to the then Minister of Labor Sanchez. There was also a motion for reconsideration which they filed with Secretary Drilon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

As already ruled by this Court, denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. ¹² Petitioners' appeal and their subsequent motion for reconsideration have the effect of curing whatever irregularity was committed in the proceedings below. ¹³chanrobles virtual law library

After a careful deliberation on the facts and issue thus posed, this Court finds no reason to disturb the assailed order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, with costs against petitioners.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.