Title
Mamerto vs. Inciong
Case
G.R. No. L-53060
Decision Date
Nov 15, 1982
Twenty-eight petitioners, including regular employees, apprentices, and domestic helpers, were dismissed for valid causes like illegal strikes, AWOL, and rule violations. Courts upheld dismissal, citing due process and lack of unfair labor practice.
illegal dismissal
unfair labor practice
due process

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-53060)

Factual Background

The labor controversy originated from petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal, which the employer sought to oppose through an application for clearance to terminate employment. Among the twenty-eight complainants, the labor authorities categorized sixteen as regular employees, eight as apprentices, and four as domestic helpers. Estrella noted that the parties were required to submit their respective position papers, but only the employer complied within the scheduled deadline.

According to the orders, twelve of the complainants who were treated as regular employees absented themselves without notice from March 7 to March 13, 1979, causing a slowdown in production. The labor authorities recorded that these workers admitted their absence during the hearing. For this group, the employer filed for clearance to dismiss, characterizing the absences as participation in an illegal sit-down strike.

The orders also described individualized bases for dismissal. For Gorgonio Javier, the stated grounds included repeated violations of company rules and refusal to explain alleged wrongdoing. For J. Dacanay, C. Cuaresma, and P. Basallo, the orders treated them as having been AWOL, living in the employer’s compound, leaving it on March 6, 1979, and not reporting for work thereafter. Eight apprentice complainants were dismissed for failure to meet the employer’s training standards.

Separately, Estrella stated that E. Esteban, Garry Baldimor, Adriano Cuaresma, and Jaime Soberano were not employees of the employer but household workers in the employ of a certain Mrs. Rosita Kuo. In addition, it emerged that some complainants were further addressed on appeal for related circumstances, including Crisostomo Cuaresma, Patricio Basilio, and Juanito Dacanay, who were said to have been absent without leave since March 6, 1979 and not to have reported or returned to the company premises where they had lived.

Proceedings Before the Labor Authorities

Respondent Estrella dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit and granted the employer’s application for clearance to dismiss. Petitioners appealed to Deputy Minister Amado G. Inciong, who affirmed Estrella’s order.

In his affirmance, Inciong addressed what he described as a necessary clarification of the nature of complainants’ employment, due to contradicting positions. Inciong found that Rosario Mamerto, Felisa dela Cruz, Herman Villalobos, Botona Baudillo, Rolando Mamerto, Dominador Maca, and Antonio Bartolay were apprentices, based on duly approved apprenticeship agreements. He also found that Eddie Esteban, Gary Baldimor, Adriano Cuaresma, and Jaime Soberano were household helpers, established by positive testimony in affidavits of witnesses, and held that no evidence showed any different employment relationship. The remainder were treated as regular employees.

Inciong then treated separately the cases of complainants who were characterized as AWOL and not returned since March 6, and he reiterated the ground for Gorgonio Javier as repeated negligence in performing duties as dyeing operator.

Inciong then identified the main issue as whether the employer committed unfair labor practice by dismissing the remaining complainants due to union activities, or whether the dismissals were for legal causes. He relied on a factual reconstruction of work disruptions: production output allegedly declined starting the last week of February 1979, with marked decreases and poor product quality, and with many workers noted absent. He recorded a “complete paralyzation of production” on March 9 and 10, and only partial resumption on March 11, described as low output and efficiency.

Inciong characterized this situation as resulting from a concerted activity amounting to economic sabotage and an illegal strike in violation of PD 823, and he determined that complainants were active participants. He rejected petitioners’ reliance on what he referred to as the “Ramo incident”—an alleged episode involving the employer’s security guard—stating that the orders found no credible record or report of the incident, and no showing of any connection to the worksite conditions during the relevant period. He also referenced assigned military and peace officers as assurances of protection from harassment or physical harm.

Finally, Inciong addressed an issue raised by petitioners on appeal: that they had allegedly never been required to submit position paper during the entire period of conciliation hearing. Inciong referred to minutes of proceedings dated April 4, 1979, which allegedly included a directive for complainants to submit position papers supported by affidavits and documentary evidence. Instead of complying, petitioners allegedly filed a motion to certify the issues for compulsory arbitration. Inciong held that petitioners thus defaulted by failing to submit their promised evidence and position paper, and therefore could not challenge the Regional Director’s resolution without such filing. He concluded that petitioners’ explanations did not credibly overcome evidence showing infractions and concerted action. The Order of May 18, 1979 was accordingly affirmed. The Deputy Minister likewise ordered the employer to pay financial assistance to all complainants who were regular employees, equivalent to one-half month for every year of service, in view of the employer’s offer during the hearing below.

Petitioners’ Claims in the Present Certiorari Proceeding

Before the Court, petitioners asserted that the labor orders were attended by grave abuse of discretion. Their arguments centered on alleged denial of due process, particularly in the handling of their refusal or failure to submit position paper and in the denial of their motion to certify issues for compulsory arbitration.

Petitioners contended that public respondents erred in refusing their motion, and they maintained that they had not been required to submit position papers during conciliation, or at least that the procedural expectation was not properly enforced against them. They further sought relief based on alleged procedural unfairness and the claimed incompetence of the labor officers to decide without certification for compulsory arbitration.

Legal Issues Framed for Review

The core questions presented for judicial review were whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in: (a) denying the motion for certification for compulsory arbitration and proceeding to decide the complaints; (b) adjudicating petitioners’ complaint without petitioners’ position paper; and (c) upholding dismissals allegedly anchored on union-related activities claimed to constitute unfair labor practice, as opposed to dismissals supported by lawful cause and supported by the record.

The Court’s Ruling on Due Process and Compulsory Arbitration

The Court rejected petitioners’ due process theory. It held that the record showed petitioners were required to submit position papers supported by affidavits and documentary evidence during the conciliation stage, but petitioners failed to do so. Instead, petitioners filed a motion to certify the issues for compulsory arbitration, which was denied. The Court stated that public respondents, particularly Estrella, could not be faulted for deciding without petitioners’ position paper, given petitioners’ omission.

The Court treated petitioners’ claim that they had never been required to submit a position paper as self-serving and unsupported by evidence, and it emphasized the presumption of regularity. It also observed that petitioners did not simply waive participation; rather, hearings were held where parties were represented by counsel and petitioners were afforded opportunities to present evidence. The Court reasoned that petitioners opted to file only a motion to certify issues for compulsory arbitration during the relevant period rather than to present evidence. After an adverse decision, petitioners appealed, which further negated any claim of deprivation of due process. The Court thus concluded that while the action of Estrella might be summary, it did not amount to a denial of due process.

On compulsory arbitration, the Court agreed with

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms