Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
,
INC.,
G.R. No. 153660
FACTS:
On 15 February 1995 sixty-two (62) employees of respondent CocaCola Bottlers, Inc., and its officers, Lipercon Services, Inc., People's
Specialist Services, Inc., and Interim Services, Inc., filed a complaint
against respondents for unfair labor practice through illegal dismissal,
violation of their security of tenure and the perpetuation of the "Cabo
System."
For failure to prosecute as they failed to either attend the scheduled
mandatory conferences or submit their respective affidavits, the
claims of fifty-two (52) complainant-employees were dismissed.
Thereafter, Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera conducted clarificatory
hearings to elicit information from the ten (10) remaining
complainants (petitioners herein) relative to their alleged employment
with respondent firm.
In substance, the complainants averred that in the performance of their
duties as route helpers, bottle segregators, and others, they were
employees of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. They further
maintained that when respondent company replaced them and
prevented them from entering the company premises, they were
deemed to have been illegally dismissed.
In lieu of a position paper, respondent company filed a motion to
dismiss complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action, there
being no employer-employee relationship between complainants and
Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., and that respondents Lipercon Services,
People's Specialist Services and Interim Services being bona fide
independent contractors, were the real employers of the complainants.
As regards the corporate officers, respondent insisted that they could
not be faulted and be held liable for damages as they only acted in
their official capacities while performing their respective duties.
On 29 May 1998 Labor Arbiter Jose De Vera rendered a decision
filed directly with the Supreme Court, should now be brought to the
Court of Appeals.
judgment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could
never become final, and could be attacked in any appropriate
proceeding.
The Court finds no merit in the proposition that relief is foreclosed to
Villa because her motion for reconsideration of November 22, 1982
was filed out of time. The very informal character of the so-called
administrative proceedings, an informality for which Commissioner
Dizon himself was responsible and which he never sought to rectify,
militates against imposing strict observance of the limiting periods
applicable to proceedings otherwise properly initiated and regularly
conducted. Indeed, considering the rather "off-the-cuff" manner in
which the inquiry was carried out, it is not even certain that said
petitioner is chargeable with tardiness in connection with any incident
thereof. What the record shows is that she invariably responded
promptly, at times within a day or two of receiving them, to orders of
communications sent to her. At any rate, the Court will not permit the
result of an administrative proceeding riddled with the serious defects
already pointed out to negate an earlier judgment on the merits on the
same matter regularly rendered by competent court.
bulletin board.
Moreover, the Collector of Customs contended that a reopening of the
case was an exercise in futility considering that the forfeited property,
a Mercedes Benz 450 SLC, had an engine displacement of more than
2800 cubic centimeters and therefore was under the category of
prohibited importation pursuant to B.P. Blg. 73.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for review 7 with the
Department of Finance, which petition the latter referred to the public
respondent. The petitioner likewise addressed a letter 8 to the Hon.
Cancio Garcia, the Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs,
Office of the President, Malacaang, requesting the latter's assistance
for a speedy resolution of the said petition.
Finally, the public respondent rendered a decision on September 22,
1989 affirming the previous order of the Collector of Customs for the
Forfeiture of the Mercedes Benz in question in favor of the
government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a notice of hearing posted in the bulletin board is
sufficient notice
RULING:
We agree with the petitioner that a notice of hearing posted on the
bulletin board of the public respondent in a forfeiture proceeding
where the owner of the alleged prohibited article is known does not
constitute sufficient compliance with proper service of notice and
procedural due process.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized the imperative necessity
for administrative agencies to observe the elementary rules of due
process. And no rule is better established under the due process clause
of the Constitution than that which requires notice and opportunity to
be heard before any person can be lawfully deprived of his rights.
In the present case, although there was a notice of hearing posted on
the bulletin board, the said procedure is premised on the ground that
ISSUE:
RULING:
This Office is not about to shift the blame for all these to the drivers
employed by the DAR-CAR as respondent would want us to do.
The OP, however, found that the charges of oppression and
harassment, as well as that of incurring unliquidated cash advances,
were not satisfactorily established.
In a "petition for appeal" 17 addressed to President Ramos, Lumiqued
prayed that A.O. No. 52 be reconsidered and that he be reinstated to
his former position "with all the benefits accorded to him by law and
existing rules and regulations." This petition was basically premised
on the affidavit dated May 27, 1993, of a certain Dwight L. Lumiqued,
a former driver of the DAR-CAR, who confessed to having authored
the falsification of gasoline receipts and attested to petitioner
Lumiqued's being an "honest man" who had no "premonition" that the
receipts he (Dwight) turned over to him were "altered." 18
Treating the "petition for appeal" as a motion for reconsideration of
A.O. No. 52, the OP, through Senior Deputy Executive Secretary
Leonardo A. Quisumbing, denied the same on August 31, 1993.
Undaunted, Lumiqued filed a second motion for reconsideration,
alleging, among other things, that he was denied the constitutional
right to counsel during the hearing. 19 On May 19, 1994, 20 however,
before his motion could be resolved, Lumiqued died. On September
28, 1994, 21 Secretary Quisumbing denied the second motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.
further claimed that Marcelo Molina had not yet paid the full purchase
price of the land covered by the said Tax Declarations. For his part,
Teodulo Matillano claimed8 that he never executed a deed of absolute
sale over the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 0236 in
favor of Ulysses Cawaling, petitioners brother.
In response to Memorandum Order No. 18, petitioner submitted a
letter9 dated 29 October 1996, stating that with respect to the
complaint of Noraida San Sebastian Cesar, she had already explained
her side in the letter dated 26 September 1996. As to the complaint of
Teodulo Matillano, she alleged that it was a certain Lilia Barrientos
who executed a deed of absolute sale over the parcel of land subject of
the complaint in favor of her brother, Ulysses Cawaling.
Not satisfied, respondent Mayor created a fact-finding committee to
investigate the matter. After a series of hearings, the committee, on 22
November 1996, submitted its report10 recommending petitioners
separation from service, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Evaluating the facts above portrayed, it is clearly shown that
Municipal Assessor Haydee Casimero is guilty of malperformance of
duty and gross dishonesty to the prejudice of the taxpayers of San
Jose, Romblon who are making possible the payments of her salary
and other allowances. Consequently, we are unanimously
recommending her separation from service.
Based on the above recommendation, respondent Mayor issued
Administrative Order No. 111 dated 25 November 1996 dismissing
petitioner.
petitioner appealed to the CSC, which affirmed12 respondent Mayors
order of dismissal. A motion for reconsideration13 was filed, but the
same was denied.14
Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated her case to the Court of Appeals,
which subsequently affirmed the CSC decision.15 Her motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari to this Court. She avers
that Lorna Tandog Vilasenor, a member of the fact-finding committee,
is the sister of respondent Mayor. She further alludes that while the
committee chairman, Nelson M. Andres, was appointed by the
respondent Mayor to the position of Administrative Officer II only on
01 August 1996, no sooner was he given the chairmanship of the
Committee. Further the affiants-complainants were not presented for
cross examination.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was afforded procedural and substantive due
process when she was terminated from her employment as Municipal
Assessor of San Jose, Romblon. An underpinning query is: Was
petitioner afforded an impartial and fair treatment?
HELD:
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In
administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due
process simply means the opportunity to explain ones side or the
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.19 "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments
in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to
be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded,
there is no denial of procedural due process.20
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been
recognized to include the following:
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of
counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to
defend ones rights;
NTC asserts that since Globe and Smart were required to submit their
respective Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and
franchises, the parties were sufficiently notified that the authority to
operate such service was a matter which NTC could look into. This is
wrong-headed considering the governing law and regulations. It is
clear that before NTC could penalize Globe and Smart for
unauthorized provision of SMS, it must first establish that SMS is
VAS. Since there was no express rule or regulation on that question,
Globe and Smart would be well within reason if they submitted
evidence to establish that SMS was not VAS.
Neither was the matter ever raised during the hearings conducted by
NTC on Smart's petition. The opportunity to adduce evidence is
essential in the administrative process, as decisions must be rendered
on the evidence presented, either in the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
Third. The imposition of fine is void for violation of due
process Globe claims that the issue of its authority to operate SMS
services was never raised as an issue in the Complaintfiled against it
by Smart. Nor did NTC ever require Globe to justify its authority to
operate SMS services beforethe issuance of the Order imposing the
fine. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed decision, upheld the power
of NTC to impose a fine and to make a pronouncement on Globe's
alleged lack of operational authority without need of hearing, simply
by citing the provision of the Public Service Act90 which enumerates
the instances when NTC may act motu proprio. That is Section
17 NTC itself, in the Order, cites Section 21 as the basis for its
imposition of fine on Globe.
Under Section 17, NTC has the power to investigate a PTE
compliance with a standard, rule, regulation, order, or other
requirement imposed by law or the regulations promulgated by NTC,
as well as require compliance if necessary. By the explicit language of
the provision, NTC may exercise the power without need of prior
hearing. However, Section 17 does not include the power to impose
fine in its enumeration. It is Section 21 which adverts to the power to
impose fine and in the same breath requires that the power may be
exercised only after notice and hearing.
Thus, the Order effectively discriminatory and arbitrary as it is, was
issued with grave abuse of discretion and it must be set aside. NTC
may not legally require Globe to secure its approval for Globe to
continue providing SMS. This does not imply though that NTC lacks
authority to regulate SMS or to classify it as VAS. However, the
move should be implemented properly, through unequivocal
regulations applicable to all entities that are similarly situated, and in
an even-handed manner.