Case Digest (G.R. No. 181480)
Facts:
This is Josefina Cada v. Time Saver Laundry/Leslie Perez, G.R. No. 181480, January 30, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Josefina Cada sued respondents Time Saver Laundry (TSL) and its owner/proprietor Leslie Perez for illegal dismissal and related monetary claims before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).On 21 May 2003 petitioner filed a verified complaint (NLRC‑NCR Case No. 05‑06071‑03) alleging that she was employed as a presser from 28 September 2002, worked long hours without overtime and other benefits, and was sent home and prevented from working on 7 May 2003 after being accused of quarreling. Respondents did not appear during Labor Arbiter proceedings; the Labor Arbiter proceeded ex parte after petitioner filed a position paper and, in a Decision dated 16 March 2004, found illegal dismissal and awarded separation pay, backwages and other monetary relief.
Respondents appealed to the NLRC (docketed CA No. 040723‑04). In a Resolution dated 30 November 2004 the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding of illegal dismissal (with a modification on attorneys’ fees) and denied respondents’ motions for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 28 February 2006. Respondents then filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 94616), contending they were denied due process because the summons and notices were not personally served on Leslie Perez.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 17 December 2007, held that service was improper because the bailiff’s returns showed service on TSL employees or relatives (e.g., a summons received by Alfredo Perez on 7 June 2003; notices received by Beth Diapolet, Vivian Bon, and “Benjie”), and concluded that Perez was denied due process, declarin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was service of summons and notices upon respondents, particularly upon Leslie Perez, improper such that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC lacked jurisdiction and the NLRC resolutions are null and void (i.e., was due process denied)?
- If service was not fatal, are the NLRC findings that petitioner was illegally dismissed and the attendant monetary awards supportable unde...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)