Case Digest (G.R. No. 173283)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 173283)
Facts:
Scenarios, Inc. and/or Rhotziv Bago v. Jelly Vinluan, G.R. No. 173283, September 17, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On 8 August 2000, Jelly Vinluan, a former setman of Scenarios, Inc., filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and nonpayment of benefits against Scenarios, Inc., Rhotziv Bago and one Jess Jimenez. Summons were issued and sent by registered mail addressed to “Mr. Jess Jimenez” at the Scenarios business address; the summons envelope bore the markings “RETURN TO SENDER” and “UNCLAIMED.” Notices of hearing were likewise mailed to Rhotziv Bago and/or Jess Jimenez at the corporate address. Petitioners did not appear at scheduled hearings and were deemed to have waived the right to file a position paper; respondent filed his position paper on 17 November 2000.
On 26 April 2001 the labor arbiter rendered a decision ordering respondent’s reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages (or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible). A writ of execution was served on Scenarios, Inc. on 6 July 2001. Petitioners then filed a Notice and Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC, asserting that they had only just learned of the proceedings. The NLRC, however, on 20 August 2003 remanded the case to the labor arbiter for proper service after finding no proof of receipt of summons, hearing notices or the decision; respondent’s motion for reconsideration of that NLRC order was denied.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the NLRC orders. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, holding that petitioners had failed to rebut the presumption that notices and summons were regularly sent and received; it relied on a Quezon City Central Post Office certification that a copy of the labor arbiter’s decision was received on 5 June 2001 and concluded petitioners’ appeal to the NLRC had been belatedly filed on 2 August 2001. The Court of Appeals reinstated the labor arbiter’s decision (deleting “Tess Jimenez” from the dispositive portion as she had not been impleaded). Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision and subsequent Resolution.
Issues:
- Were petitioners denied due process because the summonses, notices of hearing, and copy of the labor arbiter’s decision were not validly served?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the New NLRC Rules (Rule III, Sections 5 and 6, as amended) and the presumption of regularity to reinstate the labor arbiter’s decision?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)