Facts:

The case involves petitioners Associated Labor Unions (ALU), Jose Ajero, and Antonio Ajero against respondents National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), J.B. Orchids Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tomas B. Sian, Jr., and Labor Arbiter Bonifacio B. Tumamak. The events leading to this case started on November 29, 1983 and December 8, 1983, when the Ajero brothers filed separate illegal dismissal cases against their employer, J.B. Orchids Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with their union representing them. These cases were consolidated at the Labor Arbitration Branch No. 7 in Cebu City, where they sought reinstatement, recovery of unpaid wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and other benefits, including compensation for illegal deductions from their salaries. Initial hearings were scheduled for January 31, 1984, but the private respondents failed to attend the hearings on multiple occasions, leading to a decision by Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria on February 15, 1985, ruling in favor of the petition

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners: Associated Labor Unions (ALU) along with petitioners Jose Ajero and Antonio Ajero, who are brothers.
• Cases Filed: Two separate cases for illegal dismissal were filed on November 29, 1983, and December 8, 1983 against J. B. Orchids Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or Tomas B. Sian, Jr.
• Representation: The petitioners were represented by their labor organization, consolidating the cases before the Labor Arbitration Branch No. 7 of the NLRC in Cebu City.

Proceedings Before the NLRC and Labor Arbiter

• Relief Sought: Petitioners asked for reinstatement with full backwages, recovery of unpaid wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, emergency cost of living allowance, vacation and sick leaves, commissions, and refund of illegal salary deductions.
• Scheduling of Hearings:
• Preliminary hearing initially set on January 31, 1984, based on a Notification and Summons served to the respondents.
• Subsequent re-set hearings were scheduled on February 8, 1984; March 14, 1984; March 22, 1984; and April 9, 1984.
• Private respondents (or their counsel) appeared only on February 8, 1984, where their counsel, Atty. Avenescio Piramide, signed the minutes.
• Labor Arbiter’s Decision:
• On February 15, 1985, due to the nonappearance or failure of the respondents to file a position paper in the later hearings, Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners.
• The decision ordered the private respondents to:
• Pay various monetary claims including legal holiday pay, premium pay, unpaid commissions, unpaid wages, emergency cost of living allowances, and moral and exemplary damages.

ii. Reinstate petitioners to their former positions with full backwages and benefits, preserving their seniority rights.

Allegations on Procedural Due Process

• Petitioners’ Argument:
• Asserted that proper notice was given based on the bailiff’s return service indicating that the Notification and Summons (for January 31, 1984) was served at the respondent corporation’s address.
• Noted that subsequent notices – including those for the hearings on March 14, 1984; March 22, 1984; and April 9, 1984 – were either received by the security guard or the secretary of the respondents’ counsel, thereby providing ample opportunity for the respondents to be heard.
• Respondents’ Position:
• Claimed that they were not personally served or properly notified, alleging a violation of procedural and substantive due process.
• Asserted that the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction over them due to improper service of the summons.

Additional Context and Subsequent Developments

• Legal Basis for Due Process:
• The case discusses the “cardinal primary” requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the right to be heard, submission and consideration of evidence, and decisions grounded on disclosed and substantial evidence.
• Relevant jurisprudence cited includes Jose Rizal College v. NLRC and decisions in cases such as Almoite v. Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc.
• Final Outcome Before This Review:
• The NLRC’s resolution was to set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision citing lack of due process.
• Petitioners, arguing that the respondents had ample notice, pursued certiorari challenging the NLRC’s resolution on the alleged reversible error.

Issue:

Due Process Violation

• Whether the private respondents were denied procedural due process despite claims that they received ample notice of all scheduled hearings.
• Whether the manner of service—through a security guard and counsel’s acknowledgement—satisfied the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings.

Jurisdictional and Finality Concerns

• Whether the NLRC erred in setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision on the basis that there had been a lack of due process.
• Whether the respondent NLRC’s action in reconsidering a decision that was already rendered final and executory was proper, considering the ten-day reglementary period for appeal.

Appropriate Relief

• Determining whether reinstatement with full backwages was still feasible in view of the respondent corporation ceasing operations due to a conflagration.
• If not, what alternative remedy (e.g., payment of separation pay and backwages) should be awarded to the petitioners.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)