T.H. VALDERAMA & SONS, INC. AND/OR ROBERTO TINSAY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON, DANNY GONZAGA AND 276 OTHER WORKERS, RESPONDENTS.

This petition concerns the orders issued by public respondent
Secretary of Labor and Employment Franklin M. Drilon denying the appeal
of petitioners and affirming the compliance order of the Assistant
Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
formerly the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE).^[1]

The instant case originated from a complaint filed by Danny
Gonzaga for and in behalf of 276 other employees against their employer
T.H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as petitioner
company) and/or Roberto Tinsay, dated January 7, 1985 before the Iligan
City District Office of the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and
Employment through its Labor Standards Enforcement Unit.

In their
complaint, private respondents alleged failure of their employer,
petitioner company, to pay their salaries, wages, allowances and other
benefits due them under the applicable laws. Specifically, they are
claiming their unpaid wages and emergency cost of living allowance
(ECOLA) covering the period of November and December 1984; underpayment
of their wages and ECOLA for three years; and non-payment and
underpayment of their 13th month pay.^[2]

By reason of this complaint, on February 4, 1985, Labor Standards
Enforcement Unit officers Somirano Macud and Cornelia Garay went to the
premises of petitioner company to conduct an investigation. There, they
were met by Ireneo Clarida, personnel aide of petitioner company, and
were informed that the manager was not around. The following day, the
said labor officers went back to petitioner company’s premises but,
again, were told that the manager was out. Thereupon, the labor
officers conducted their investigation and came out with a report^[3] which was submitted to the
Regional Director of the MOLE, Region XII, Cotabato City.

In the
said report, the following findings were made:

“1. That respondents violated Sec. 11 Rule X, Book III of the
Rules Implementing PD 442, as amended, requiring employers to keep their
employment records in their premises;

4. That complainants were underpaid of their 13th month pay.”^[4]

After computing the amount of private respondents’ claim, the
Labor Standards Enforcement Unit set the amount of petitioner company’s
liability at the aggregate sum of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT
THOUSAND & 92/100 (P1,928,000.92).

On the basis of the
aforesaid report, Assistant Regional Director Martin E. Daiz of the MOLE
issued a Compliance Order^[5]
dated May 28, 1985 requiring petitioner company to pay its liability as
computed.

Thereafter, or on July 15, 1985, private respondents
filed a motion for execution of the compliance order. A day after, a
writ of execution was issued by the Regional Director.

In due
time, petitioners filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution
and/or reconsideration dated August 21, 1986 attaching and submitting
therewith some pay slips and daily time records showing that some of
private respondents’ claim had already been paid or otherwise satisfied.
Acting on the said motion, the Regional Director reduced the amount of
petitioners’ liability to ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND
THREE & 70/100 (P1,495,003.70).

In the light of the
foregoing development, the Regional Director called for a summary
investigation of the controversy. Petitioners failed to appear therein,
henceforth, a writ of execution was issued to satisfy the claims of
private respondents.

This was appealed to the then Minister of
Labor and Employment Augusto Sanchez who, in an order dated November 14,
1986, ruled against petitioner company. The dispositive portion of the
order reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Compliance Order dated May
28, 1985 is hereby affirmed subject to the modification that the award
therein be reduced to P1,495,003.70 as recomputed. Let the entire
records be remanded to the Regional Office of origin for enforcement of
the said order which had become final and executory.

SO ORDERED.”^[6]

A motion for reconsideration of the immediately preceding order
was filed but the same was denied by respondent Secretary Franklin
Drilon on March 12, 1987.^[7]
Hence, this petition for certiorari.

The only issue posed in this instant petition is whether
petitioners were denied their right to procedural due process.

Petitioners posit the affirmative. However, We find their contention
bereft of merit.

There is no denying that in order for this Court
to sustain the findings of an administrative body exercising
quasi-judicial functions, such body must abide by the elementary rules
of due process.^[8]. However,
procedural due process as understood in administrative proceedings
accepts of a more flexible standard as long as the proceedings were
undertaken in an atmosphere of fairness and justice.^[9]

Contrary to petitioners assertion,
the record discloses that they were not denied their right to due
process. They had several opportunities to present their side of the
controversy but were negligent in defending their cause.

As borne
by the record, after the narrative report was forwarded by the Labor
Standards Enforcement Unit to the Office of the Regional Director, a
hearing was scheduled on February 8, 1985 for petitioners to dispute the
report thus submitted. However on the scheduled hearing, petitioners
failed to appear.

Likewise, in the summary investigation that was
scheduled on May 20, 1986 for the purpose of hearing the parties
relative to the amount of petitioner company’s liability as recomputed,
petitioners, again, did not appear despite due notice.^[10]

Petitioners vehemently deny that
notices of the aforestated proceedings were ever sent to them. This
failure of notice is in fact the core of their argument in their
petition.^[11]

At any
rate, We need not discuss the truthfulness of this assertion. As the
record will reveal, petitioners were afforded ample opportunity to
present their side of the case. Petitioners were able to submit pay
slips and daily time records to the appropriate agency of the DOLE which
became the basis of the recomputation conducted. Besides, they were
able to appeal the compliance order and writ of execution to the then
Minister of Labor Sanchez. There was also a motion for reconsideration
which they filed with Secretary Drilon.

As already ruled by this
Court, denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a
party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for
reconsideration.^[12]
Petitioners’ appeal and their subsequent motion for reconsideration have
the effect of curing whatever irregularity was committed in the
proceedings below.^[13]

After a careful deliberation on the facts and issue thus posed, this
Court finds no reason to disturb the assailed order.

WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit,
with costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz,
Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Page 19, Rollo.

^[2] Page 11, Rollo.

^[3] Entitled “Narrative
Report Re: Inspection Conducted at Valderama & Sons, Inc.”, Pages
20-22, Rollo.

^[4] Page 21, Rollo.

^[5] Pages 23-24, Rollo.

^[6] Page 17, Rollo.

^[7] Minister Sanchez was
succeeded by Secretary Drilon.

^[8] Ang Tibay vs. CIR,
69 Phil. 635 (1940).

^[9] Gas Corporation
of the Phil. vs. Inciong, 93 SCRA 653 (1979).

^[10] Page 16, Rollo.

^[11] Pages 4-7, Rollo.

^[12] Rosales vs.
Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344 (1988); Cuerdo vs. Commission on
Audit, 166 SCRA 657 (1988).

^[13] Ibid.