ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 125429. January 13, 1999]

WILLIAM LINES, INC. vs. NLRC, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.

G.R. No. 125429 (William Lines, Inc., vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Eliseo B. Amrento, Pedro Villareal, Lopito Nambatac, Julio E. Acid, Federico Lesigues, and George F. Criste.)

For Resolution is petitioner William Line's motion1 [Rollo, pp. 97-106.] seeking reconsideration of this court's Resolution2 [Rollo, pp. 92-93.] of September 30, 1996, which dismissed the petition for Certiorari3 [Rollo, pp. 11-22.] filed on August 15, 1996, for failure of movant to interpose a motion for reconsideration of subject NLRC decision4 [Annex "A"; Rollo, pp. 23-39.] dated August 1, 1996.

Movant theorizes that it was denied due process in view of the Arbitration Branch's failure to notify it of the hearings schedule on November 18, 1994, November 25, 1994, and December 12, 1994. It is further theorized that the Agreement5 [Reply, Rollo p. 123, citing Minutes or Constancia of the proceedings of the NLRC Arbitration Branch. Annex "D"; Rollo, p. 130.] inked on December 12, 1994 by Elite Security Investigation Agency, Ambassador Hotel, and the herein private respondents, to submit the case for decision, could not and did not bind petitioner for the reasons, that:

1) Petitioner was not notified of the said hearings; and

2) Petitioner made a reservation in its position paper 6 [Reply: Rollo. P. 123.] to adduce documentary and testimonial evidence.

The contention of petitioner is untenable.

Well established is the rule that "a motion for reconsideration, as a rule is an indispensable pre-condition to filing a petition for certiorari."7 [Building Care Corporation vs. NLRC 268 SCRA 666, p. 668, February 26, 1997.] While the requirement for a motion for reconsideration recognizes some exceptions8 [Liberty Insurance Corporation vs. C.A. 222 SCRA 37, p. 47, citing Quirino vs. Grospe 169 SCRA 702 and People vs. Dacuda 170 SCRA 489.], no recognized exception is attendant in the present case. The denial of due process theorized upon by movant cannot be considered as a special circumstance to do away with the requisite motion for reconsideration. Both the Arbitration Branch and the NLRC ruled out the existence of a denial of due process. Well settles to the point of being elementary is the rule that "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, as opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard, hence, a party can not feign denial of due process where he had been afforded an opportunity to present his side.9 [Garcia vs. NLRC, November 18, 1996, 264 SCRA 261, p. 269.]

In the case under consideration, petitioner William Lines filed a position paper on November 4, 1994 wherein it made a reservation of the right to adduce additional evidence. Before the labor Arbiter handed down the assailed decision, petitioner had all the chances to present its evidence from November 3, 1994 to March 1995 but failed to adduce any. On appeal before the NLRC, it was also unable to prove that the complainants were duly paid. Verily, petitioner was to blame for its failure to present the evidence it reserved to introduced. Petitioner could well afford to hire lawyers to attend to its case but it did not do so.

Assuming ex gratia argumenti that there were proofs to be presented, the same could have been presented on appeal before the NLRC. In the case of Haverton Shipping Ltd., vs. NLRC, 10 [135 SRCA 185 [1985]. Cited in Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Sony vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 209, p. 291 [1997].] it was held that although the affidavits of the complainant's shipmate were submitted only when the case was on appeal before the NLRC, the latter was not precluded from taking them into account because there was plausible reason for the delay in the submission thereof.

For its failure to avail of such opportunities, coupled with the absence of a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC, in support of which motion, evidence could have been presented, petitioner is now precluded from complaining of a denial of due process.

Even on the substantive aspect of the case at bar, the petition cannot prosper. As correctly ruled11 [Annex "C"; Rollo p. 64.] by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, petitioner is an direct employer within the contemplation of Art. 107 of the Labor Code. Consequently, it is solidarily liable with the job contractor, Elite Security Agency, for the unpaid wages and benefits of private respondents.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for reconsideration under consideration is hereby DENIED for want of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE