Case Citation: Baguio Country Club v. NLRC, G.R. No.
L-55624,
Date: November 19, 1982
Petitioners: Baguio Country Club
Respondents: NLRC
Syllabus Topic: Evidentiary Facts
Doctrine: The instant petition is a timely reminder to labor arbiters and all who wield
quasi-judicial power to ever bear in mind that evidence is the means,
sanctioned by rules, of ascertaining in a judicial or quasi-judicial
proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Section 1, Rule 128)
The object of evidence is to establish the truth by the use of
perceptive and reasoning faculties. The statutory grant of power to use
summary procedures should heighten a concern for due process, for judicial
perspective in administrative decision making, and for maintaining the visions
which led to the creation of the administrative office.
Antecedent On August 18, 1978, the Baguio Country Club Corporation filed with the
Facts: Ministry of Labor office at Baguio City an application for clearance to
terminate the services of respondent Jimmy Sajonas for :
a. willful breach of trust,
b. telling lies in an investigation,
c. taking money paid by customers,
d. threatening a fellow employee,
e. committing dishonesty against guests and
f. committing four violations of the club rules and regulations which
would constitute valid grounds for dismissal.
On August 28, 1978, Jimmy Sajonas filed his opposition alleging that
his dismissal was without justifiable grounds to support it and that it
would contravene his constitutional right to security of tenure.
After a notice of investigation was issued, the case was referred to a
conciliator who recommended the preventive suspension of the
respondent.
The Regional Director suspended Sajonas and indorsed the case for
compulsory arbitration to Labor Arbiter Benigno Ayson.
On December 11, 1978, the labor arbiter came out with a decision
denying the application for clearance to dismiss Jimmy Sajonas for
EVIDENCE
Please do not circulate.
insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner was ordered to reinstate
Sajonas with backwages from the time of suspension up to
reinstatement and without loss of seniority rights. The labor arbiter
allowed a last minute position paper of respondent Sajonas to be filed
and without requiring a copy to be served upon the Baguio Country
Club and without affording the latter an opportunity to refute or rebut
the contents of the paper, forthwith decided the case.
The case was appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. On
January 17, 1980, the Commission rendered a decision dismissing the
appeal and affirming the decision of the labor arbiter. The petitioner
charges the public respondents with grave abuse of discretion for,
having rendered an "unlawful, unconstitutional, and unprecedented
decision."
Conciliator After a notice of investigation was issued, the case was referred to a
Ruling: conciliator who recommended the preventive suspension of the
respondent.
Regional The Regional Director suspended Sajonas and indorsed the case for
Director Ruling compulsory arbitration to Labor Arbiter Benigno Ayson.
LA Ruling On December 11, 1978, the labor arbiter came out with a decision
denying the application for clearance to dismiss Jimmy Sajonas for
insufficiency of evidence. The petitioner was ordered to reinstate
Sajonas with backwages from the time of suspension up to
reinstatement and without loss of seniority rights. The labor arbiter
allowed a last minute position paper of respondent Sajonas to be filed
and without requiring a copy to be served upon the Baguio Country
Club and without affording the latter an opportunity to refute or rebut
the contents of the paper, forthwith decided the case.
NLRC Ruling the Commission rendered a decision dismissing the appeal and
affirming the decision of the labor arbiter. The petitioner charges the
public respondents with grave abuse of discretion for, having rendered
an "unlawful, unconstitutional, and unprecedented decision."
Appellate court
EVIDENCE
Please do not circulate.
Ruling:
Petitioner’s Baguio Country Club - The petitioner states that as a result of this ignoring
Contention: of its evidence, the decisions of the public respondents are contrary to the facts
and the applicable law. As pointed out by the petitioner, "while an
administrative tribunal possesed of quasi-judicial powers is free from the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements, it does not mean that it can in
justiciable cases coming before it entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental
and essential requirements of due process."
Respondent’s NLRC - The decision of the respondent Commission which affirmed the order
Contention: to reinstate Mr. Sajonas with full backwages was based on two grounds - First,
the evidence available to the labor arbiter when he decided this case was such
that the respondent had not sufficiently shown a just cause for the
complainant's dismissal. Second, the evidence to support the application for
clearance to dismiss the complainant was submitted too late because it was
submitted only on appeal.
Issue: Whether the petitioner was denied due process because its evidence was not
considered by both the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
SC Ruling: YES. the petitioner was denied due process because its evidence
was not considered by both the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
The summary procedures used by the public respondents were too
summary to satisfy the requirements of justice and fair play. When
the Baguio office of the Ministry of Labor issued as part of the conciliation
process a notice of investigation for September 7, 1978 and September 15,
1978, the petitioner Baguio Country Club submitted a position paper
accompanied by copies of the application to terminate employment and the
sworn statements of witnesses taken during the investigation of the alleged
anomalies. Jimmy Sajonas did not submit any position paper. No position
paper was served on the petitioner or its counsel. The only document
submitted was one with a short two paragraphs comprising the grounds for
opposition. As a result of the conciliator's recommendation, the case was
indorsed for arbitration to the labor arbiter. Noting that Mr. Sajonas did not
appear at the arbitration proceedings and did not present any position paper
but left it to some union members to speak for him and allegedly because Mr.
Sajonas had promised to quietly resign, the petitioner merely adopted the
position paper filed during the conciliation proceedings.
The irregular procedures used by the labor arbiter started at this point. The
labor arbiter allowed a last minute position paper of respondent Sajonas to be
filed and without requiring a copy to be served upon the Baguio Country Club
EVIDENCE
Please do not circulate.
and without affording the latter an opportunity to refute or rebut the contents
of the paper, forthwith decided the case. The public respondents now argue in
their comment that "it is of no moment that petitioner was not furnished with
a copy of Sajonas' position paper" because as early as the conciliation stage it
was already apprised of the position of the employee, having been furnished
Sajonas' opposition and that it cannot feign ignorance. This stand of the public
respondents is erroneous. Since the case was decided on the basis of position
papers, the petitioner had a right to be served a copy of the respondent's
position paper admitted and considered by the arbiter and an opportunity to
introduce evidence to refute it. As explained by the petitioner, it had been
lulled into thinking that because the private respondent had offered to resign
and the employer had agreed to forego the prosecution of criminal charges,
there would no longer be any complete or full-scale arbitration proceedings
Mr. Sajonas denies that he promised to resign and contends that criminal
proceedings were an afterthought to harass the poor laborer. The fact that
there were two divergent and clashing allegations before them, not only on this
point but also on the 'Principal issues of dishonesty and intimidation of co-
employees, the public respondents should have adopted fairer and more
accurate methods of ascertaining truth. In the great majority of petitions for'
review of decisions from the Ministry of Labor and Employment, we have
sustained agency determinations and denied due course to the petitions.
However, we have never hesitated to exercise our corrective powers and to
reverse labor ministry decisions where the ministry or a labor tribunal like the
respondent commission has sustained irregular procedures and through the
invocation of summary methods, including rules on appeal, has affirmed an
order which tolerates a violation of due process
Others/Notes:
EVIDENCE
Please do not circulate.
***INSTRUCTIONS FOR UPLOADING***
1. Deadline is 11:59 PM every Thursday.
2. Please convert to PDF file before uploading.
3. File name is [No.] [Title] (16. De La Salle Montessori v. De La Salle Brothers)
THANK YOU.
EVIDENCE
Please do not circulate.
