ROBINSON PUA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 8TH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND CHRISTOPHER C. DIAZ, RESPONDENTS.
BORJA, J.:
The Facts of the Case
Herein private respondent Christopher C. Diaz was the complainant in RAB XI-06-00655-2010, a complaint for “Illegal Dismissal and Money Claims” against Star Oil and/or Robinson Pua, Manager. The facts, as found by respondent Commission, based on the findings of the Labor Arbiter,[3] are as follows:
Respondent Star Oil is a business establishment engaged in the sale of gasoline and other petroleum products. Complainant on the other hand was hired as “welder” sometime in July of 2007 where he was engaged to perform welding jobs to respondent’s different gasoline stations for indefinite period in accordance with the instructions of the respondent without reference to any particular project, until his alleged illegal termination on June 2010.
Complainant was specifically engaged to undertake welding jobs for the respondent Star oil whenever and wherever welding jobs are needed at the respondent’s different gasoline stations. Wherever he may be assigned to perform welding jobs he is required to report for work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday.
Allegedly, he was required to do welding works even during Sundays, which is his established rest day. He was likewise required to perform welding works even during regular holidays except New Year’s Day (January 01), Christmas Day (December 25), Holy Thursdays and Good Friday, without paying him premium pay for working on his rest day and regular holidays.
Complainant alleged that sometime on 12 June 2010 while he was receiving his salary, payroll in-charge Margie Amad told him in vernacular “kuya, karun sa mo taman. Hulat land daw kay tawagan land daw ka” (Your job ends today. You are advised to wait until you are called).
Few days after, he received a call from Margie Amad requiring him to report to the Office of Robinson Pua. He told Margie that he could not possibly report immediately to the office of Robinson Pua as he was in General Santos City. Nevertheless, he reported for work two days later only to be told that: “Kuya, wala naman, naa na kay kapuli, nakakita na sir” (There’s no more job for you, sir (Robinson Pua) have already found your replacement). After which, he was no longer given work.
Aggrieved by his sudden termination, he filed the present complaint.
Complainant argued that he is a regular employee of respondent Star Oil. That apart from paying his wages, respondent Star Oil exercise direct control and supervision over him. He reports for work directly to the gasoline station of respondent Star Oil to perform welding jobs without reference to any project. It is also the respondent Star Oil that assigns him to perform welding jobs at their different gasoline stations. Moreover, he performed his work according to the instructions of respondent Star Oil.
Complainant further claimed that as shown by his weekly time record, he is a time worker, as he was required to report for work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from Monday to Saturday. He was not also paid on piece rate or task basis. As such regular time worker, he is entitled to all the mandatory labor standard benefits provided for by law such as: overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for work render on rest day and holidays, service incentive leave and 13th month pay.
Relying on applicable laws and jurisprudence on the matter, complainant contended that as regular worker of the respondent, he enjoyed the right to security of tenure for which his employment could not be arbitrarily terminated without just and authorized cause. That his dismissal having been capricious, whimsical and arbitrary as he was summarily dismissed without valid and justifiable grounds and he was not also afforded due process in his dismissal, his dismissal therefore is illegal where he is entitled to backwages and separation pay as well as indemnity for damages for violation of his right to due process.”[4]
On December 20, 2010, the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision, the dispositive portion of which states –
WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered declaring complainant Christopher C. Diaz’s termination from employment as ILLEGAL.
Consequently, respondents STAR OIL and/or Robinson Pua in his capacity as Manager are hereby jointly and severally held liable to pay complainant Diaz the following:
a. Backwages b. Separation Pay c. Holiday Pay e. 13th month pay f. Service Incentive Leave All other claims not hereto awarded are considered denied for lack or merit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Aggrieved by the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, Star Oil / Robinson Pua appealed to the NLRC.
On June 27, 2011, the NLRC rendered the herein assailed Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads –
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the assailed decision of 20 December 2010 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Robinson Pua thus filed the present petition advancing as grounds therefor that:
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BASED ALONE ON THE PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO FILE HIS POSITION PAPER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
- THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE ARBITER A QUO DECLARING THAT THERE EXISTS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT.[7]
The Ruling of the Court
The Labor Arbiter had ruled on the basis of the evidence on hand which consisted only of the evidence of Christopher Diaz. The Labor Arbiter explained –
The parties were ordered to file their respective position papers after they failed to reach an amicable settlement during the conciliation and mediation conference on July 8, 14, 22, and August 26, 2010.
Unfortunately, records show that only the complainant complied with the submission of Position Paper on 13 September 2010. Respondents despite due notice, for no apparent reason and even after reasonable time had elapsed after the period of its submission had long prescribed, miserably failed to submit their Position Paper. Respondents’ failure to submit Position Paper within the prescribed period even prompted the complainant to file a Motion for the early resolution of the case.
Pursuant to the rules and as stated in the Order, the parties’ non-submission of Position Paper shall be deemed a waiver on their part to adduce evidence and the case shall be decided on the basis of evidence on hand.
Petitioner now argues that his failure to file his position paper was excusable: his office personnel may have received a copy of the order requiring him to submit the same but might have inadvertently failed to inform him of it because most of the time he was staying in Manila for business purposes and to visit his family who were residing there. He had instructed his personnel before he went to Manila to inform him of any communication addressed to him, including any orders and processes from the Labor Arbiter involving this case. He even asked his personnel whether they had received the said order but they could not recall having received the same. Thus, his failure to file the required position paper was caused by circumstances beyond his control, thus, excusable negligence on his part.
This Court is not persuaded.
In the assailed Resolution, respondent Commission held that –
x x x
Respondents-appellants cannot now feign ignorance that they have no knowledge of an Order from the Arbiter a quo requiring them to submit a position paper below. Records clearly reveal that appellants, through their duly authorized representative, Ms. Madelene Gondon, Human Resource of respondent Star Oil, actively participated in the proceedings of this case as shown by the Minutes thereof. Ms. Gondon was present at the mandatory conference held on July 14, 2010, July 22, 2010 and August 26, 2010, the last of which was when the Arbiter a quo directed the parties, including the respondents-appellants, to submit their respective position paper within ten (10) days from receipt of said Order.
Conclusively then, the respondents-appellants’ denial of a receipt of an Order requiring them to submit a position paper is a lame excuse if not totally deceiving in order to correct their failure to file a position paper in the Arbitration Branch below..
Thus, the apparent submission of a position paper by the respondents-appellants on appeal does break the essence of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure but comes too late in a day to be appreciated and entertained. Indeed, parties of a labor dispute is enjoined to follow faithfully the rules of this Commission and not to break the same by simply feigning ignorance in order to correct the fatal error they themselves commit by their omission and failure to submit a position paper before the Arbitration Branch a quo. This omission We cannot allow so as not to defy the rules of this Commission on grounds of flimsy and lame excuses which We definitely abhor.
Precisely, the respondents’ non-submission of a position paper is deemed a waiver on their part to adduce evidence and to controvert the complainant’s causes of action. Thus, it is a foregone conclusion that the case must be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence on record. Hence, the ex-parte decision in favor of complainant-appellee.[8]
The Court discerns no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Commission in so ruling. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[9] The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[10]
In the assailed Resolution of the public respondent, the latter’s conclusions were clearly founded on substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[11] In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings such as the one before the respondent Commission, substantial evidence is sufficient to establish a fact.[12] Where the Commission’s conclusions are based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion.
As held in Cadalin v. Court of Appeals[13] –
Deference to the expertise acquired by the labor tribunal and the limited scope granted the Court in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction restrain any probe into the correctness of the NLRC’s evaluation of evidence.[14] Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[15] as in the instant case.
In view of the inexcusable failure of petitioner to file his position paper, the Labor Arbiter was eminently correct in saying that –
In the instant case, considering the respondent’s failure to submit their Position Paper, respondents therefore not only mioserably failed to rebut the complainant[‘s] allegation of illegal dismissal but also dismally failed to discharge the burden to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the complainant’s termination was for a valid just cause. Respondents likewise failed to show that the statutory procedural requirements of notice and hearing in effecting the complainant’s termination from employment were duly observed and complied with.
All told, the Court discerns no error, let alone grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the respondent Commission in affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed June 27, 2011 Resolution is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Francisco and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 7-35.
[2] Annex “A” of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 36-41.
[3] Elmer Ben V. Pasio.
[4] Annex “E” of the Petition; Rollo, 130-137.
[5] Id. at pp. 136-137.
[6] Note 2, supra.
[7] Page 11 of the Petition; Rollo, p. 16.
[8] Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[9] UCPB v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007, citing Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies v. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, G.R. No. 152228, September 23, 2005.
[10] Id.
[11] Rule 133, Section 5, Revised Rules of Evidence.
[12] Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc, G.R. No. 168074, September 26, 2008.
[13] G.R. No. 168923, November 28, 2008.
[14] Aquino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149404, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 76, 85.
[15] Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 583, 594.