G.R. No. 132848-49 - Philrock, Inc. vs. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

Melivo, the respondent, filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC on October 22, 2009, with prayers for reinstatement and various monetary claims (back wages, holiday pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave, and 13th month pay).
The summons and a copy of the complaint were served by registered mail on October 26, 2009, with service confirmed by a registry return receipt dated November 27, 2009.

Mandatory conciliation/mediation conferences were scheduled on November 23, 2009, and December 1, 2009, but the petitioners (Oyster Plaza Hotel, Rolito Go, and Jennifer Ampel) failed to appear.
The case was set for a formal hearing on January 14, 2010, but due to non-service of the notice (returned unserved), the hearing was reset to February 17, 2010.
At the February 17, 2010 hearing, only Melivo appeared and filed a Position Paper detailing his employment history, including his initial hire as a trainee in August 2008, subsequent probationary employment starting November 2008, and later re-hiring on April 7, 2009 without an employment contract.
A subsequent notice for a hearing on March 24, 2010 was again sent but returned unserved, leading the Labor Arbiter to decide ex parte.

On April 20, 2010, the LA ruled that Melivo was illegally dismissed, holding that he had attained regular employee status after rendering six months of service.
The decision found that except for claims of reinstatement and back wages, other claims (service incentive leave, holiday pay, overtime pay) were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
The LA ordered reinstatement of Melivo to his former position, payment of back wages from dismissal until finality of the decision, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the total monetary awards.

Melivo filed a Motion to Implement the Order of Reinstatement, and the Labor Arbiter subsequently issued a Writ of Execution on September 21, 2010.
On October 21, 2010, the petitioners filed a Motion to Quash (regarding the writ of execution), arguing they did not receive the summons, notices, or a copy of the LA decision.
Without waiting for the LA’s action on the motion to quash, the petitioners appealed before the NLRC, asserting multiple defenses including defects in service of process and the nature of Melivo’s employment (fixed-term versus regular employee).

The NLRC, on June 21, 2011, affirmed the LA decision by holding that the service by registered mail was sufficient and that petitioners’ denial regarding receipt did not render service invalid; it further determined that Melivo was a regular employee due to the absence of any project-specific indication in the employment contract and failure to submit a termination report.
The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on September 26, 2011.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its decision dated April 30, 2014, dismissed the petitioners’ arguments—holding that the procedural errors, such as the failure to include MDC as an impleaded party, were mere formalities that did not affect jurisdiction—and affirmed the NLRC ruling.
A subsequent CA Resolution dated March 12, 2015, denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners alleged that they were deprived of due process because they were not properly served with summons and notices.
They contended that Melivo was not illegally dismissed since he was a fixed-term employee rather than a regular employee.
They also challenged the imposition of solidary liability on Go and Ampel, arguing these individuals were not responsible as corporate agents of Oyster Plaza/MDC.

In their petition, the petitioners reiterated their arguments about defective service of process, misclassification of employee status, and improper attribution of solidary liability.
In his Comment, Melivo countered these arguments by emphasizing the substantially compliant service of summons, the established procedural norms in labor disputes, and the inherent wrongfulness in his arbitrary dismissal.
In subsequent replies, the petitioners merely reiterated their earlier positions without introducing new evidence.

Whether or not the petitioners were deprived of their right to due process of law, given the alleged defects in the service of summons and other notices.
Whether or not the CA erred in determining that Melivo was illegally dismissed, specifically regarding his status as a regular employee.
Whether or not the CA erred in finding that petitioners Go and Ampel should be held solidarily liable together with Oyster Plaza/MDC for Melivo’s illegal dismissal.