Title
St. Michael Security Service vs. Inciong
Case
G.R. No. L-45109
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1978
Labor dispute over illegal salary deductions; petitioner failed to appear despite notices, leading to ex-parte ruling upheld by NLRC and Labor Secretary. SC dismissed petition, affirming due process and substantial evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45109)

Procedural History

The Labor Arbiter Cresencio J. Ramos initially ruled in favor of the private respondents, awarding them P3,840.00 for amounts illegally deducted from their salaries. St. Michael Security Service appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), asserting that the Arbiter abused his discretion. The NLRC upheld the Arbiter’s ruling, confirming that due process was sufficiently observed.

Due Process Concerns

The petitioner raised significant due process objections regarding both procedural and substantive aspects. The appeal argued that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to present its case adequately. However, the NLRC found these claims unsubstantiated, concluding that the petitioner had been notified of all hearing dates, although it failed to show up for three hearings. The decision emphasized that the petitioner had every opportunity to be heard yet chose not to avail itself of that right.

Notifications of Hearings

The arguments presented by the petitioner suggested discrepancies in receiving notices about the hearings. However, the records showed that the notices were duly sent. The Supreme Court highlighted that, as per established jurisprudence, actual receipt of notification was not necessary for the due process requirement to be met; proper procedures were observed once the parties were given the chance to be represented and heard.

Substantive Due Process Analysis

The Court also addressed the claim of substantive due process, concluding that there was no arbitrary or capricious action taken against the petitioner. The ruling of Labor Arbiter Ramos was found to be backed by substantial evidence, as the joint affidavit of the complainants detailed the illegal deductions they suffered. The NLRC and subsequently the Secretary of Labor saw no grounds to overturn the Arbiter’s decision, indicating that the claims of substantive due process violations were without merit.

Conclusion

The petitio

...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.