Title
Marvel Building Corp. vs. Ople
Case
G.R. No. L-44302
Decision Date
May 20, 1983
Marvel Building Corp. challenged a reinstatement order for Imelda Haw, claiming denial of due process. SC upheld the order, ruling proper notice was given and petitioner failed to present substantive defenses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-44302)

Procedural Background

The facts of the case indicate that Imelda V.C. Haw filed a verified complaint for illegal dismissal from her position as Secretary, which was registered under LAS-T-IV-4880-76, setting the stage for a summary investigation. Notice of this investigation was duly sent to the petitioner's manager, evidenced by documentation from the telegraph office. During the investigation, only Haw appeared, while the petitioner was absent.

Findings of the Administrative Proceeding

The investigation revealed that the petitioner had dismissed the private respondent without prior clearance from the Department of Labor, which is mandated by law. Consequently, Vicente Leogardo, Jr. issued an order mandating Haw's reinstatement with back wages. In response, Marvel Building Corporation filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, asserting a lack of due process, which was subsequently treated as an appeal and upheld by Secretary Blas Ople.

Due Process Claim by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that it was deprived of due process during the investigation. It argued that typically, absent parties are granted a second opportunity to present their case. The petitioner asserted that its lack of presence was attributable to excusable negligence, further emphasizing a valid defense against the private respondent's claims. Petitioner claimed not to have received the required notice for the hearing, which contributed to its absence and resultant default.

Response from Respondents

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the respondents, refuted the petitioner's claim, asserting that the petitioner had received notice a day prior to the scheduled summary investigation. Furthermore, it indicated that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner negated any assertion of denial of due process, suggesting that if a genuine lack of employer-employee relationship existed, it could have been established during reconsideration. The Court noted that the petitioner did not substantiate its broad claims of absence with specific evidence or intentions to present a counterclaim.

Legal Principles and Conclusion

The decision articulated the significance of security of tenure as enshrined in th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.