UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION (UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS), PETITIONER, VS. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), FAUSTINO NICOLAS, SANTOS BARBIANA, FELIPE ADO…

Petitioner claims that public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) committed a grave abuse of discretion in affirming the
decision of labor arbiter Teresita R. Domingo dated July 13, 1982 in NCR Case No.
AB-4-5730-80, CA-4-338-80, the dispositive part of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent
Universal Robina Corporation to pay the complainants
the following:

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

On April 11, 1988,
this Court issued a restraining order and petitioner filed a bond in the amount
of P50,000.00.^[2]

The pertinent facts are undisputed.

Private respondents, originally 22 individual workers, instituted
a money claim for unpaid wage increases pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement against the petitioner in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC,
docketed as NCR-CA-4-338-80 (later AB-4-5730-80).

 To determine whether or
not the petitioner complied with the payment of the wage increases under the
collective bargaining agreement, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the
Acting Chief of the Research and Information Unit or any of its duly authorized
representatives for the purpose of examining the payrolls and other pertinent
records of the petitioner.  On January 19, 1981, the Acting Chief
prepared his report, stating that petitioner substantially complied with the
provision of the collective bargaining agreement regarding the wage increase.

On the basis of that report, labor arbiter Lacandola
S. Leaño, to whom the case was assigned, issued an
order dated January 20, 1981
dismissing the private respondents’ complaint.^[3]
The Report of the Acting Chief stated that the examination of the payrolls and payslips was made with the assistance of both parties and
their counsel.  The Acting Chief
concluded that private respondents were not entitled to the first year wage
increase provided for in the collective bargaining agreement because they
became regular employees only after June of 1974; that private respondents were
entitled to and were given wage increases effective at the beginning of the
second year of the collective bargaining agreement not reflected in their
individual payslips because petitioner made
corresponding deductions from cash advances to the private respondents; and
that petitioner complied with the stipulated wage increases in favor of the
private respondents.

Private respondents appealed the said order on the ground that
they were deprived of the opportunity to contest the findings in the report
made by the Acting Chief.  The First
Division of the NLRC set aside the order dated January 20, 1981 and remanded the case to another labor
arbiter for further proceedings.  This
time, only 12 complainants (private respondents) remained as parties.

Both parties submitted position papers, motions and
manifestations, whereupon labor arbiter Teresita R.
Domingo rendered her questioned decision dated July 13, 1982.

The petitioner brought an appeal to the NLRC.  The same was docketed as Case No. RAB-IV-AB-4-5730-80.  In a resolution dated March 23, 1987, the Second Division of the NLRC
dismissed the appeal.

Hence, this petition anchored on the argument that the award in
favor of private respondents has no legal basis.

The petition is meritorious.

The Court is convinced that petitioner had already complied with
the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement regarding the payment of
wage increases and that private respondents were not denied due process when
labor arbiter Lacandola S. Leaño
issued the order dated January 20,
1981 dismissing the complaint of private respondents.  Private respondents and their counsel were
present during the investigation conducted by the Acting Chief of the Research
and Information Unit.  They were free to
present their own evidence.  They did
not.  It is explicit from the order of
labor arbiter Lacandola S. Leaño
that private respondents were not denied due process, to wit:

“ORDER

In conformity with the agreement of the parties, the
above-entitled case was referred to the Acting Chief, Research and Information
Unit or any of his duly authorized representatives, for purposes of examining
the payrolls and other pertinent records of the respondent to determine the
entitlement of complainants, if any, to the wage increases provided for in the
Collective Bargaining Agreements entered into by the Company and the collective
bargaining agent of the workers.  On January 19, 1981, a
“Report” was submitted reading, among others, as follows:

“x       x       x

“The examination of the payrolls and the pay slips of
complainants involved in this case was made by the undersigned with the
assistance of representatives of both parties and their respective counsels.

“x       x       x

“Considering that verifications conducted by the Corporation
Examiners of this Branch, of the payrolls, vouchers, and other pertinent
records of the company were with the presence and assistance of the
representatives of the parties, this Labor Arbiter adopts as its own the
findings contained in the aforequoted
“Report”.

“Consequently, it appearing that
respondent (herein petitioner) has complied with the provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement in question, regarding payment of wage
increases, let this case therefore be, as it is hereby dismissed.

“x       x       x.”^[4]

Moreover, as correctly observed by petitioner, the decision
rendered by labor arbiter Teresita R. Domingo does
not show the basis of the computation in the total amount of P56,778.24.  The individual awards to private respondents
do not reflect the period covered, the amount due and the cash and bonus, if
any, credited to petitioner.^[5]
As it is, the award appears to have been arrived at arbitrarily.  The questioned resolution of the NLRC
affirming the decision of the labor arbiter suffers from a serious flaw.  It must be set aside.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The questioned resolution of the Second
Division of the National Labor Relations Commission dated March 23, 1987 in Case No. RAB-IV-AB-4-5730-80 is
hereby SET ASIDE.  The complaint filed by
private respondents against petitioner is hereby DISMISSED.  No costs.

This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Page 30, Rollo.

^[2]
Pages 67 to 69, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 19 to 20, Rollo.

^[4] Id.

^[5]
Pages 27 to 30, Rollo.