ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 130419. July 19, 1999]
METROPOLITAN SECURITY AGENCY vs. NLRC, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 19, 1999.
G.R. No. 130419 (Metropolitan Security Agency vs. National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division), Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos and Precioso A. Abello.)
The records show that on January 23, 19991, respondent Precioso Abello, a security guard, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of labor standards against petitioner Metropolitan Security Agency. The case was docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91.
Despite due notice, petitioner did not appear at the conference set by Labor Arbiter Nieves De Castro. Thus, the labor arbiter directed the parties to submit their position papers. Only respondent Abello complied, hence, in an Order dated April 17, 19991, petitioner was considered submitted for decision but petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order. It appears that the motion was not resolved.
On April 26, 1991, petitioner moved to consolidate NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91 with NLRC Case No. 00-01-0094-91, an action for illegal dismissal and money claims earlier filed against petitioner by respondent's co-worker, security guard Frederick Gloria.1 [Entitled, "Frederick P. Gloria, et al., vs. Metropolitan Security Agency and/or Mrs Diana Torres."] Respondent did not receive a copy of the motion but, nonetheless, Labor Arbiter De Castro granted the motion to consolidate on the very day it was filed and immediately endorsed2 [1st Indorsement dated April 26, 1991, Rollo, p. 41.] NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91 to Labor Arbiter Pacita Del Rosario to whom NLRC Case No. 00-01-0094-91 was assigned.
Subsequently, other complaints3 [Docketed as NLRC Case Nos. 0952-91, 0456-91, 1684-91 and 1408-91.] for illegal dismissal filed against petitioner by its other employees4 [Security guards Benjamin Jaca, Ronnie Timbol, George Fabriquel and Feliciano Aresta.] were also consolidated with NLRC Case No. 00-01-0094-91. Hearings were conducted, albeit some of the complainants,5 [Jaca and Timbol.] including respondent, failed to appear at the proceedings. The consolidated cases were transferred from one labor arbiter to another, including Labor Arbiter Roberto I. Santos.
The records then show that the cases were finally reassigned to Labor arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos. On February 8, 1996, Labor Arbiter Cadiente Santos rendered a decision 6 [Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 17-28.] in the consolidated cases, dismissing the illegal dismissal case and all the money claims filed by the respondent an his co-employees, thus:
"Anent the issue of illegal dismissal, records show that complainant's counsel agreed to have the case of Benjamin Daca dismissed without prejudice considering that Daca went to the province and could no longer be contacted to appear for cross-examination on his affidavit.
"The case of complainant Precioso Abello and Ronnie Timbol may be similarly treated by reason of their failure to appear and testify on their alleged dismissal from employment. Hence, their complaints should be, as they are hereby likewise dismissed without prejudice.
x x x��� x x x��� x x x
"WHEREFORE, private to all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Dismissing for lack of merit all the money claims;
2. Dismissing the charges of illegal dismissal for the following reasons:
a. The case of Benjamin Daca and Ronnie Timbol is dismissed without prejudice;
b. The case of George Fabriquel is dismissed for being moot and academic by reason of settlement and the parties are hereby enjoined to faithfully comply with their agreement;
c. The case of Feliciano Aresta and Frederick Gloria is dismissed for want of basis, and complainants are hereby directed to report for work and the respondents to accept them back.
"SO ORDERED."
However, a week later, or on February 15, 1996, Labor Arbiter Cadiente Santos rendered a separate decision 7 [Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 29-34.] in NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91, holding petitioner liable for the illegal dismissal of respondent Abello. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby directed: (1) to reinstate complainant to his former position as security guard at the National Bookstore Avenida Branch (not as reliever in the warehouse) with the usual 12 hours duty;
(2) to pay complainant the mandated Padpao rate of wage P6,826.37
per month of 12 hours duty a day;
(3) to pay complainant salary differential and other benefits in the total
amount of P103,813.96.
"The Sheriff is hereby directed to order the immediate reinstatement of the complainant or payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement even pending appeal by the respondent without loss of seniority rights and other benefits.
"SO ORDERED."
Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, assailing the February 15, 1996 Decision in NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91 as void on account of its consolidation with NLRC Case Nos. 0094-91, 0952-91, 0456-91, 1684-91 and 1408-91.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal8 [Annex "D", Rollo, pp.42-52.] on the ground that the consolidation was not valid, as respondent was not given the chance to oppose the motion to consolidate, in violation of the NLRC's rule9 [Section 3, Rule IV of the Revised Rules of the NLRC.] on the matter. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.10 [Annex "F", Rollo, pp. 76-78.] Hence, this petition where petitioner insists that public respondent gravely abused its discretion in upholding the separate decision of Labor Arbiter Cadiente Santos in NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91 despite its consolidation with NLRC Case Nos. 00-01-0094-91, 0952-91, 0456-91, 1684-91 and 1408-91.
We remand the case to the labor arbiter.
The procedural blunders committed by the labor arbiters concerned in handling the case at bar to be bewailed. These errors were capped by the two 92) conflicting decisions rendered by the same labor arbiter involving the same case in a span of one week, namely: (1) the February 8, 1996 Decision in the consolidated cases which dismissed without prejudice the complaint of respondent Abello for his failure to appear and testify at the hearings of the consolidated cases and (2) the February 15, 1996 Decision which upheld the complaint of respondent Abello and considered as "gospel truth" the allegations in respondent Abello's position paper, for failure of petitioner to submit its position paper on time.
We hold that the consolidation of the cases was improper. Section 3, Rule IV of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:
"Sec. 3. Consolidation of Cases.- Where there are two or more cases pending before different Labor Arbiters in the same Regional Arbitration Branch involving the same employer and issues, or the same parties with different issues, whenever practicable, the subsequent case(s) shall be consolidated with the first to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Such consolidation of cases shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter to whom the first case was assigned. (emphasis supplied)
"In case of objection to the consolidation, the same shall be resolved by the Executive Arbiter."
In the case at bar, Labor Arbiter Nieves De Castro failed to give respondent Abello a reasonable opportunity to oppose the consolidation. She granted the motion to consolidate on the very day the same was filed. At that time, the case of respondent Abello was already submitted for decision. Its consolidation with the other cases was inappropriate as the hearings on the latter cases have not even started. In consolidation of cases, we should not lose sight of its objective--avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, save unnecessary cost and expense. Consolidation seeks to attain justice with the last expense and vexation to the litigants.11 [1 CJS 1342-1343 cited in Cojuangco vs. CA, 203 SCRA 619 (1991).] Be that as it may, the rules of the NLRC should be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Labor Code. Article 221 of the said code states that "it is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily an objectively an without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." The erroneous consolidation should not therefore be allowed to further complicate and delay the resolution of the case at bar.
We now come to the two conflicting decisions of Labor Arbiter Cadiente Santos. We note that his Decision of February 15, 1996 did not consider the evidence already adduced by the petitioner in the consolidated cases. It is thus to the best interest of justice to remand the case to Arbiter Santos, or his successor, who is instructed to consider the evidence adduced by both the petitioner and the respondent and thereafter render a decision in light thereof.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision dated May 29, 1997 of the NLRC, affirming the Decision dated February 15, 1996 of the Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos in NLRC Case No. 00-01-00485-91 is SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos or his successor who is hereby ordered to decide the case on the merits based on the position papers and supporting documents/evidence submitted by petitioner Metropolitan Security Agency and respondent Precioso Abello. No costs.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
