52. GANDARA MILL SUPPLY v. NLRC, G.R. No.

126703, 29 December 1998

DOCTRINE: If the employer filed no position paper despite adequate notice and in no way justified the
employee's dismissal, the labor arbiter is justified in deciding the case based on the position papers on
record; While the right to due process is available to all the parties, it does not countenance self-serving
excuses devised to undermine orderly administration of justice.

FACTS: On February 6, 1995, the private respondent, Silvestre Germano without notifying his
employer, Milagros Sy, owner of Gandara Mill, did not report for work until February 11, 1995 since the
former was expecting the birth of his child. Gandara Mill Supply is a small business enterprise with only
two (2) employees, including the herein private respondent, to do manual work. With inadequate
manpower, the absence of just one worker can spell untold difficulties in its operations. Matters became
even worse when private respondent, without informing his employer, was absent for a long time. Two
weeks after, private respondent returned to duty, and was told that someone had been hired to take his
place. He was advised, however, that he was to be re-admitted in June 1996. A case of illegal dismissal
was filed by Germano with DOLE. When conciliation efforts proved futile, the Labor Arbiter directed the
parties to submit their position papers on or before April 28, 1995, which deadline was extended to May
5, 1995. In his Order of May 9, 1995, Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda gave petitioner a last opportunity to
file/submit their Position Paper otherwise their right to be heard are deemed waived and the case will be
decided on the basis of the documents on file. Petitioner still failed to comply. Labor Arbiter ruled in
favor of Germano. Petitioner appealed. The NLRC dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to post a cash
or surety bond.

ISSUE: WON the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion when it rendered the Order without the
petitioner’s submission of position paper

RULING: No. To be sure, the petitioner was afforded a chance to show that the private respondent was
not illegally dismissed. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof. Petitioner's bare
allegation that it was denied the right to be heard is negated by the Labor Arbiter's extension of much
leniency to petitioner by allowing the latter to submit a position paper on April 28, 1995, then on May 5,
1995, and finally, seven (7) days from receipt of the Order dated May 9, 1995. Generally, reglementary
periods are strictly observed to the end that orderly administration of justice be safeguarded. In the case
under consideration, the public respondent had been quite liberal in observing and enforcing the rules.

The principle of laches finds a wide room for application here. Laches, in a general sense, is failure or
neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to raise it. The doctrine of
laches or "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which require for the peace of society,
discouragement of stale claims. Respondent Commission declared in clear and unequivocal terms that
"failure to file a position paper is deemed a waiver of the right to be heard and that decisions will be based
on the position paper submitted." Evidently, for making good his said Order, the Labor Arbiter cannot be
faulted for acting arbitrarily. Neither can grave error be ascribed to respondent NLRC for handing down
its decision without petitioner's Position Paper. By its inaction, petitioner was properly considered to have
waived or forfeited the right to refute private respondent's stance. Indeed, petitioner cannot now be
permitted to belatedly complain of a denial of due process. While the right to due process is available to
all the parties, it does not countenance self-serving excuses devised to undermine orderly administration
of justice.
 53. BONIFACIO MURILLO v. SUN VALLEY REALTY, INC., G.R. No. L-67272, 30 June 1988

DOCTRINE: The lack of verification of the position paper-affidavit is a formal, rather than a substantial,
defect. It is not fatal. It could be easily corrected by requiring an oath.

FACTS: Petitioners were employed in April 1967 as maintenance men tasked with the upkeep of the
roads and water system of the Sun Valley Subdivision. On January 11, 1980, they were notified by State
Realty and Investment Corporation that their services would be terminated effective January 31, 1980 in
view, allegedly, of the termination of the contract between Sun Valley Realty, Inc. and State Realty and
Investment Corporation. Petitioners' employment was terminated hence the filing of their complaint for
illegal dismissal, emergency living allowance and payment of service incentive leave. The parties agreed
to submit their case for decision on the basis of their respective position papers, instead of holding trial.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring petitioners' dismissal illegal. The NLRC reversed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter, solely on the ground that Petitioner's Position Paper-Affidavit was not
verified, and therefore "cannot be legally considered as evidence."

ISSUES: (1) WON the unverified position paper submitted by petitioner is inadmissible

(2) WON petitioners were illegally dismissed

RULING: (1) No. The lack of verification of the Position Paper-Affidavit of petitioners is a formal,
rather than a substantial, defect. It is not fatal in this case. It could have been easily corrected by requiring
an oath.

(2) Yes. It is undisputed that no clearance to terminate was ever secured by private
respondents prior to the termination of employment of petitioners. In fact, even as petitioners were
terminated on January 31, 1980, it was only on February 14, 1980 that an application for clearance was
filed by private respondents. Hence, petitioners' dismissal must be conclusively presumed to be without
just cause. Private respondents contend, however, that prior clearance was not required in cases of
complete cessation of operations, and that only a report was necessary. The fact that private respondents
intended to shut down operations due to business reverses is immaterial. The Rules cited above are clear
that clearance was likewise required before one could shut down his business. There is no showing that
private respondent applied for a clearance to shut down prior to petitioners' dismissal from work.
 54. PRECISION ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86657, 23 October 1989

DOCTRINE: The lack of verification or oath in the appeal (the employee prosecuted his appeal by
himself) is not fatal. A pleading which is required by the Rules of Court to be verified may be given due
course even without a certification if the circumstances warrant the suspension of the rules in the interest
of justice.

FACTS: Private Respondent Dominador C. Cabrera, Jr. was employed by petitioner as Accountant II-
Specialist 3. On June 15,1984, he was notified that he would be laid off effective July 16, 1984 due to the
economic situation of the company but was assured of being re-hired when its operations returned to
normal. Three years later, the petitioner announced in the newspapers that it was hiring additional
personnel because its production and sales had increased. Cabrera applied for reemployment on May 8,
1987, but he was turned down. He then filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint on the ground that the alleged violation of the assurance (that he
would be re-hired) cannot be a legal basis for the filing therein of a complaint. NLRC, on appeal, reversed
the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent employee with backwages. In its
petition for certiorari, the petitioner alleges that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in allowing
Cabrera's appeal although it was not under oath, as required under Section 13, Rule VII-A of the
Implementing Rules of the Commission. No notice of appeal was sent to the petitioner and some exhibits
were presented for the first time on appeal.

ISSUE: WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed private respondent’s appeal although
it was not under oath

RULING: No. Regarding the grounds of the petition, the public respondent pointed out in its comment
that the lack of verification or oath in the appeal (the employee prosecuted his appeal by himself) was not
fatal. Indeed, we have ruled in the past that a pleading which is required by the Rules of Court to be
verified, may be given due course even without a verification if the circumstances warrant the suspension
of the rules in the interest of justice. Neither was Cabrera's failure to furnish the petitioner with a copy of
his appeal a sufficient cause for dismissing it. He could simply have been ordered to furnish the appellee
with a copy of his appeal. The submission of additional evidence in support of Cabrera's appeal did not
prejudice his employer for the latter could have submitted counter-evidence. After all, the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in proceedings before the Commission
(Article 221, Labor Code).