RULE 128 EVIDENCE Imperial Textile v. NLRC, GR 101527, 19 January 1993

 Imperial Textile v. NLRC, GR 101527, 19 January 1993

Doctrine: Well-settled, is the rule that procedural technicalities do not strictly apply to proceedings before labor arbiters for they may avail themselves of all reasonable means to speedily ascertain the facts of a controversy.

FACTS: Angie Mendoza had been employed by Imperial Textile. In the latter part of 1986, a new management group took over the company. Mendoza who was on leave found out about the changes and consequently wrote the widow of the former president. During the change of management, Mendoza’s position that is of Personnel Manager was filled up by a new comer.

In her letter, she stated that given her circumstances, it would be proper to cease her employment. Thereafter, Mendoza filled a complaint for illegal dismissal. In its defense, Imperial Textile averred that Mendoza voluntarily resigned and if she was terminated such termination was due to valid and just grounds.

Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective position papers. Imperial Textile then filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that private respondent’s position paper is unverified and should be stricken off the record, and Complainant failed to appear despite notice, thereby depriving petitioner of its right to cross-examine her.

The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint without prejudice, on the ground that complainant’s absence deprived herein petitioner of the opportunity to cross examine her.

The NLRC reversed LA’s decision stating that the commission and the labor arbiter have the authority to decide cases based on position papers and documents submitted by the parties without resorting to technical rules of evidence. The NLRC also held that herein petitioner was not denied due process because on the basis of the records of the case, an intelligent decision could be arrived at without resorting to a formal hearing. Hence this case.

 

ISSUE: WON IMPERIAL TEXTILE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS?

 

HELD: NO. It is a basic rule that it is not the denial of the right to be heard but the deprivation of the opportunity to be heard which constitutes a violation of the due process clause.

There was sufficient compliance with the requirement of due process as petitioner was given the opportunity to present its case through a motion to dismiss and a position paper filed with the labor arbiter.

ISSUE: WHETHER AN UNVERIFIED POSITION PAPER WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LABOR ARBITER.

HELD: NO. Well-settled, is the rule that procedural technicalities do not strictly apply to proceedings before labor arbiters for they may avail themselves of all reasonable means to speedily ascertain the facts of a controversy.

ISSUE: WON THE LATE FILING OF PLAINTIFF(S)’ APPEAL IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE DECISION RENDERED?

HELD: NO. The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.

The Court, however, held that in consideration of the merits of this case, substantial justice could be rightfully invoked by way of an exception. This is one such case where the Court was convinced that substance should prevail over and not be sacrificed for form.