GLORIA ROQUE, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GERRY WALOG, RESPONDENTS.

Roque versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Gloria Roque against the National Labor Relations Commission and Gerry Walog. Roque asks the Supreme Court to annul and set aside the Commission's decision holding her liable for the monetary awards granted to Walog, an illegally dismissed driver. The case matters because it settles a question every labor practitioner must answer: when a business is a single proprietorship, may its registered owner be held solidarily liable even though the complaint named only the store and not her by name? The Court answers yes, and in doing so it teaches the working meaning of due process in administrative and labor proceedings.

Procedural History

Gerry Walog filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against FAD Bamboo Store and Flotarco Delgado before the Labor Arbiter. The respondents failed to appear and failed to file their position papers despite several resettings, so the case was submitted for decision. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 29, 2012, declaring the respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering them to pay backwages, separation pay, thirteenth month pay, underpayment of wages, and attorney's fees. Flotarco Delgado and FAD Bamboo Store did not appeal.

Gloria Roque, claiming to be the true and registered owner of FAD Bamboo Store, then filed a motion or petition for new trial before the National Labor Relations Commission, arguing that she was never named a party and that the Labor Arbiter never acquired jurisdiction over her person. The Commission denied the petition in its decision dated October 30, 2012, holding her liable for the monetary awards because she had been duly summoned as the owner of the store. Her motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated December 27, 2012. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

Gerry Walog worked as driver of FAD Bamboo Store from August 2006 until January 2, 2012, working from eight in the morning until six in the evening, Monday to Saturday. He claimed he was dismissed without cause and was underpaid, receiving only 270 pesos per day for nine hours of work, and that he was not paid his thirteenth month pay for 2011.

For its part, management, through Flotarco Delgado, sent a letter alleging that Walog had reported for work drunk, had been rude when cautioned, had failed to report the following day, and had caused cancelled orders and lost income. Management added that Walog later asked for a salary increase, answered disrespectfully, and left, and that he had not reported since. The Labor Arbiter found these bare allegations unsubstantiated, noted the total absence of any notice specifying grounds for termination, and held that the claim of being absent without leave was inconsistent with the filing of the complaint. Illegal dismissal was thus declared.

What complicates the story is ownership. The summons issued by the Labor Arbiter on January 11, 2012 was addressed to the Owner, Manager, or President of FAD Bamboo Store, and to Flotarco Delgado. Gloria Roque later surfaced as the registered owner, as shown by a certificate of business name registration issued by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2005, and she was the wife of Flotarco Delgado. She insisted she had never been named in the complaint and so could not be made to pay.

Issues

• Whether or not the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the person of Gloria Roque, the registered owner of a single proprietorship impleaded only under its business name.
• Whether or not Gloria Roque was deprived of due process when she was held solidarily liable although not specifically named in the complaint.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter, including the applicable minimum wage rate.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it quotes the settled formulation of due process in administrative proceedings, which it applies to labor cases:

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

This standard governs the second issue, because Roque was in fact given the chance to be heard through her petition for new trial and her motion for reconsideration.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over Roque. The summons was served on the Owner, Manager, or President of FAD Bamboo Store, and Roque herself admitted being the owner. Because FAD Bamboo Store is a single proprietorship, the store and Roque have one and the same personality; the store was impleaded as party respondent, so there was no merit to her claim that she was not properly impleaded. She simply ignored the processes of the labor court.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was no denial of due process. Applying the standard it quoted, the Court stressed that Roque filed a petition for new trial upon receipt of the Labor Arbiter's decision, that the Commission treated it as an extraordinary remedy under its rules, that it considered her arguments, and that she even moved for reconsideration of the adverse ruling. She was therefore heard, and the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission.

On the third issue, the Court applied the basic principle that findings of fact of Labor Arbiters, when affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, are accorded great weight, even finality, and must not be disturbed by the appellate court. It found no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and declined to disturb the factual findings, including those bearing on the wage claims.

Doctrine

• A sole proprietorship has no separate juridical personality from its owner. The store and the registered owner are one and the same person in law, so impleading the store is impleading the owner.
• Service of summons upon the Owner, Manager, or President of a single proprietorship confers jurisdiction over the person of the registered owner, who cannot escape liability on the technicality that she was not named in the complaint.
• Due process in administrative and labor proceedings is not a guarantee of a particular procedure but of an opportunity to be heard, to explain one's side, or to seek reconsideration. A party who files a petition for new trial and a motion for reconsideration has been afforded that opportunity.
• Findings of fact of Labor Arbiters, when affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission, are accorded great weight, even finality, and are not disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and dismissed the petition for lack of merit, leaving Gloria Roque liable for the monetary awards in favor of Gerry Walog.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a single proprietorship and its owner are one and the same personality, so suing the store is suing the owner. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over the person of a sole proprietor and the working meaning of due process as an opportunity to be heard, not a name on the complaint.