ROBINSON PUA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 8TH DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND CHRISTOPHER C. DIAZ, RESPONDENTS.

Robinson Pua versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Robinson Pua against the National Labor Relations Commission, its Eighth Division in Cagayan de Oro City, and Christopher Diaz. Pua asks the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's resolution affirming the Labor Arbiter's finding that Diaz was illegally dismissed and awarding him money claims. The case matters because it fixes the standard of review over labor tribunals: grave abuse of discretion is not shown where the Commission's conclusions rest on substantial evidence, and a party who ignores an order to file a position paper cannot later complain that the case was decided without his side.

Procedural History

Christopher Diaz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Star Oil and Robinson Pua, its manager, before the Labor Arbiter. After several conciliation and mediation conferences failed, the parties were directed to submit position papers. Only Diaz complied. The Labor Arbiter decided the case on the evidence on hand, declared the termination illegal, and held Star Oil and Pua jointly and severally liable for backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, thirteenth month pay, and service incentive leave. Pua appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Pua then went up to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

Star Oil is a business engaged in the sale of gasoline and other petroleum products. Christopher Diaz was hired as a welder in July 2007. He performed welding jobs at the company's different gasoline stations, reporting from eight in the morning to five in the afternoon, Monday to Saturday, and was assigned wherever welding work was needed.

Diaz claimed that he was also made to work on Sundays, his rest day, and on regular holidays, except New Year's Day, Christmas Day, Holy Thursday, and Good Friday, without premium pay. On the twelfth of June 2010, while receiving his salary, the payroll in-charge told him that his job ended that day and that he should wait to be called. When he later reported, he was told that there was no more work because a replacement had already been found. He was given no work thereafter.

Diaz filed his complaint. In the proceedings below, the respondents failed to file their position paper despite notice, and the case was decided on Diaz's evidence alone. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and awarded money claims. The Commission affirmed, noting that the company's human resource representative had attended the conferences and knew of the order to submit a position paper. Pua explained that his personnel may have received the order but failed to inform him while he was in Manila, a plea the Commission rejected as a lame excuse.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground of the petitioner's failure to file his position paper, without considering the merits of the case.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in affirming the finding of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent despite the alleged lack of evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Evidence defines substantial evidence, which the Court uses to test the Commission's findings:

Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

This standard governs because the labor tribunal's conclusions, if supported by such evidence, cannot be disturbed through certiorari.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. By grave abuse of discretion is meant a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. The Commission's conclusions were founded on substantial evidence, and in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings substantial evidence is sufficient to establish a fact. Where the Commission's conclusions rest on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion. The Court stressed that the respondents' failure to file a position paper was deemed a waiver of their right to adduce evidence, so the case was properly decided on the record, and the Labor Arbiter correctly held that the respondents failed to rebut the allegation of illegal dismissal and failed to prove a valid just cause or compliance with the requirements of notice and hearing.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found no grave abuse of discretion. It deferred to the expertise of the labor tribunal and to the limited scope of certiorari review, quoting its earlier ruling that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence. The finding of an employer-employee relationship stood on that footing.

Doctrine

First, grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Second, in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence, meaning that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, is sufficient to establish a fact, and findings supported by it are accorded respect and finality. Third, a party who fails to file a position paper despite notice waives the right to adduce evidence, and the case may be decided on the evidence on hand; the resulting finding that the dismissal was illegal stands absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the Commission's resolution was affirmed in its entirety, so Christopher Diaz prevailed and the award of backwages, separation pay, and money claims against Star Oil and Robinson Pua stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: where the labor tribunal's conclusions are based on substantial evidence, there is no grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the standard of review over the National Labor Relations Commission and the consequence of a party's failure to file a position paper.