G.R. No. L-44302 - Marvel Building Corp. vs. Ople

The case originated as a certiorari proceeding questioning a due process issue raised against both a private respondent, Imelda V.C. Haw, and public respondents from the Department of Labor.
The controversy centered on an order of reinstatement with back wages issued by then Officer-in-Charge Vicente Leogardo, Jr. and subsequently upheld by then Secretary of Labor Blas Ople.

A verified complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by private respondent against Marvel Building Corporation (the petitioner), alleging that she was removed from her position as Secretary without following the necessary clearance procedures mandated by the Department of Labor.
The complaint was docketed under LAS-T-IV-4880-76 and was duly set for summary investigation after proper notice was sent to the petitioner’s manager, as evidenced by a xerox copy of the official dispatch record from the telegraph office.

At the scheduled summary investigation, the private respondent appeared and presented evidence regarding her employment status and the circumstances of her dismissal.
The petitioner, in contrast, failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notice having been given.

Based on the investigation findings that revealed a dismissal executed without the required prior clearance from the Department of Labor, Officer-in-Charge Leogardo, Jr. issued an order directing the reinstatement of Imelda V.C. Haw along with the payment of back wages until she resumed her employment.
The petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of this order, alleging a denial of due process, particularly contending that it was deprived of the usual opportunity to appear and present its evidence—a practice ordinarily afforded when a party fails to appear due to excusable negligence.
This motion for reconsideration was elevated as an appeal to then Secretary of Labor Blas Ople, who ultimately upheld the original order, thereby prompting the current certiorari proceeding.

The petitioner argued that it was common practice for parties who failed to appear at the initial hearing to be given another opportunity to be heard, a chance they claimed was withheld in this case.
It was further contended that the petitioner did not receive the notice as alleged on the scheduled day, which led to its default, thus constituting a deprivation of its right to due process.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its comment, refuted these claims by providing proof that the petitioner had indeed received the notice a day before the scheduled hearing and emphasized that the petitioner’s own motion for reconsideration demonstrated its awareness of the proceedings.

Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to be heard, thereby being deprived of procedural due process, when it was not given a second chance to appear despite failing to attend the initial hearing.
Whether the absence of a second opportunity, as customarily provided in similar cases when the non-appearance is due to excusable negligence, constitutes a violation of the petitioner’s right to due process.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to adequately contest the existence of an employer-employee relationship, combined with its general and cursory denial in the motion for reconsideration, undermined its due process claim.
Whether the procedural measures, including the receipt of notice prior to the summary investigation and the filing of a motion for reconsideration, sufficed to satisfy due process requirements under the existing legal framework.