MIGUEL SINGSON, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), RESPONDENTS.

Singson versus National Labor Relations Commission and Philippine Airlines

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court brought by Miguel Singson against the National Labor Relations Commission and Philippine Airlines. Singson, a dismissed airline employee, asks the Supreme Court to annul the NLRC Resolution that reversed the Labor Arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal and upheld his termination. The case matters far beyond its own facts: it is the leading authority on the constitutional and administrative guarantee of an impartial tribunal, holding that the officer who reviews a case on appeal cannot be the very same person whose decision is under review. For a Bar candidate, it is the clean illustration of how a defect in the composition of a quasi-judicial body voids its entire resolution, and why that defect is not cured by a later, cleaner ruling on a motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

Singson filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, attorney's fees and damages before the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region, and the case was raffled to Labor Arbiter Raul T. Aquino. The Labor Arbiter found the evidence adduced by Philippine Airlines insufficient and declared the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement with backwages. Philippine Airlines appealed to the NLRC.

The Second Division of the NLRC, composed of Commissioners Victoriano Calaycay and Rogelio Rayala and Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, promulgated a Resolution reversing the Labor Arbiter and dismissing the complaint. Singson moved for reconsideration, and the same Division, this time with only Commissioners Calaycay and Rayala taking part, denied the motion. Singson then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assigning grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Miguel Singson was employed by Philippine Airlines as a Traffic Representative in the Passenger Handling Division. His duty was to check in passengers and baggage for a particular flight. On June 7, 1991, he was assigned to the check-in counter of Japan Air Lines for Flight 742, bound for Narita, Japan. Among the passengers he checked in was Lolita Kondo.

After checking in, Kondo complained that Singson had required her to pay two hundred dollars for alleged excess baggage without issuing any receipt. In her affidavit, she claimed she gave one hundred dollar bill and two fifty dollar bills, placed the money at the side of the counter desk, and watched him cover it with a piece of paper. A confrontation followed. Singson was asked to empty his pockets, and the dollars were not found on him. But when the lower panel of the counter he was manning was searched, two hundred sixty five dollars was found inside. Singson's defense was that Kondo had no excess baggage at all, that her luggage was within the allowed limit, and that she had pointed to another employee, Cocoy Gabriel, who was assigned to a different airline's counter.

Philippine Airlines formed an investigation committee, which found Singson guilty and recommended dismissal. The company adopted the recommendation and dismissed him effective June 7, 1991. He then filed his complaint for illegal dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction when Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, who had decided the case as Labor Arbiter, participated in the promulgation of the Resolution reversing his own decision.
• Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in relying on the affidavit of Lolita Kondo, without cross-examination, to justify the dismissal.
• Whether or not the NLRC erred in holding that the quantum of evidence to justify dismissal was met, and in not imposing on the employer the burden of proving the legality of the dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the vehicle of the petition, invoked because the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This is the procedural gateway through which the Court reaches the due process defect in the NLRC's composition.

Rule VII, Section 2, paragraph b of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which the Court quotes in describing the Division's composition, provides:

Each Division shall consist of one member from the public sector who shall act as the Presiding Commissioner and one member each from the workers and employers sectors, respectively.

The Court uses this provision to show that the law itself designed the Division to guarantee equal representation and impartiality, a design defeated when a commissioner reviews his own ruling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Singson and found grave abuse of discretion. It held that he was denied due process when Commissioner Aquino, as presiding commissioner of the Second Division, participated in reviewing Philippine Airlines' appeal, for he was reviewing his own decision as a former Labor Arbiter. The Court recalled the requisites of procedural due process in administrative proceedings laid down in Ang Tibay versus Court of Industrial Relations, including the right to a hearing, the requirement that the decision rest on substantial evidence presented at the hearing, and the rule that the tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts. It added that administrative due process includes a tribunal so constituted as to give a litigant reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality. From this the Court drew the governing rule:

It is self-evident from the ruling case law that the officer who reviews a case on appeal should not be the same person whose decision is the subject of review. Thus, we have ruled that the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review.

The Court stressed that Commissioner Aquino could hardly be considered impartial, since he was the arbiter who decided the case under review, and that he should have inhibited himself. Consequently, the Resolution of May 19, 1995 was void, because the Division that handed it down was not composed of three impartial commissioners. The Court rejected the argument that the defect was cured when the motion for reconsideration was denied by only two commissioners without Aquino's participation. The right to an impartial review begins from the time the appeal is filed, and it is a right to a review by three impartial commissioners, not merely to an impartial ruling on reconsideration. The denial of that right was not an innocuous error; it negated due process.

Having resolved the case on this ground, the Court set aside the NLRC Resolution and Order and remanded the case for further proceedings, without reaching the second and third issues on the sufficiency of the affidavit and the quantum of evidence.

Doctrine

The officer who reviews a case on appeal must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review. A quasi-judicial body is so constituted by law as to give litigants reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and a resolution issued by a division that includes the very officer who decided the case below is void for lack of due process.

The right to an impartial review is measured from the filing of the appeal, and it is a right to a review by three impartial commissioners under Rule VII, Section 2, paragraph b of the NLRC Rules. It is not satisfied by a later denial of reconsideration in which the disqualified commissioner took no part, because the tainted resolution remains void.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the NLRC Resolution of May 19, 1995 and its Order of June 27, 1995 were set aside, and the case was remanded to the NLRC for further proceedings, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review. Examiners use this case to test impartiality of quasi-judicial bodies, the void nature of a decision rendered by a biased division, and the rule that a clean ruling on reconsideration cannot cure the defect.