Procedural Due Process

 Nestle Philipiines, Inc., v Puedan, GR 220617, Jan. 30, 2017

Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
CA affirmed NLRC Decision declaring Nestle jointly and severally liable with ODSI to respondents for
Separation pay, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.
Terms:
Nominal damages are awarded in recognition of a violation of a right of the
plaintiff when no actual damage was done to him. Nominal damages are recoverable where
some injury has been done, but the evidence fails to show the corresponding amount thereof.
Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded in order that the
plaintiff’s right, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered.
Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where
there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever
have been or can be shown.
Syllabi Class :Due Process ; Administrative Due Process ;
FACTS:
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages, and attorney’s fees against Nestle
Phils., Inc. (NPI) and Ocho de Septiembre Inc. (ODSI).
The respondents alleged that ODSI and NPI hired them to sell various NPI products in the assigned
covered area. After some time, the respondents demanded that they be considered regular
employees of NPI, but they were directed to sign contracts of employment with ODSI instead.
Respondents refused to comply with such directives resulting to their dismissal from their position.
Respondents contend that ODSI is a labor-only contractor, and thus, they should be deemed regular
employees of NPI, and there was no just or authorized cause for their dismissal.
ODSI averred that it is a company engaged in the business of buying, selling, distributing, and
marketing of goods and commodities of every kind, and it enters into all kinds of contracts for the
acquisition thereof. ODSI admitted that it hired respondents as its employees and assigned them to
execute the Distributorship Agreement it entered with NPI.
However, the business relationship between NPI and ODSI turned sour when NPO’s sales
department badgered the latter regarding the sales targets. Eventually, NPI downsized its marketing
and promotional support from ODSI which resulted to the termination of the Distributorship
Agreement. ODSI argued that respondents were not dismissed but merely on floating status.
Meanwhile, NPI did not file any position paper or appear in the scheduled conferences.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and concluded that all the impleaded
respondents therein (including NPI) should be held liable for the payment of nominal damages plus
attorney’s fees.
Respondents appealed to NLRC.
NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling, and ordered ODSI and NPI to pay each of the
respondents’ separation pay and nominal damages.
Respondents moved for a partial reconsideration. NPI also moved for reconsideration, contending
that it was deprived of its right to participate in the proceedings before the LA and NLRC.
NLRC denied both motions. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether NPI was deprived of its right due process
RULING:
No, NPI was afforded the fair and reasonable opportunity to explain its side.
The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due
process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings,
this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
As held in Ledesma v. CA, “Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all
situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against
him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.”
In this case, NPI essentially claims that it was deprived of its right to due process when it was not
notified of the proceedings before the LA and did not receive copies and issuances from the other
parties and the LA, respectively.
However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, NPI was furnished via courier of a copy of the amended
complaint filed by the respondents against it as shown by LBC Receipt No.125158910840. It is also
apparent that NPI was also furnished with the respondents’ Position Paper, Reply, and Rejoinder.
Verily, NPI was indeed accorded due process, but as the LA mentioned, the former chose not to file
any position paper or appear in the scheduled conferences.
Assuming arguendo that NPI was somehow deprived of due process by either of the labor tribunals,
such defect was cured by:
(a) NPI’s filing of its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC;
(b)the NLRC’s subsequent issuance of its Resolution wherein the tribunal considered all of NPI’s
arguments as contained in its motion; and
(c) NPI’s subsequent elevation of the case to the CA.
In Autencio v. Mañara, it was held that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the
party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
ESCRA
Labor Disputes; Grave Abuse of Discretion; In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be
ascribed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) when, inter alia, its findings and
conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the petitioner must satisfactorily show
that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse
of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility, the character of which being so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at
all in contemplation of law. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC
when, inter alia, its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.

Due Process; Administrative Due Process;

Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in
the former a formal or trial type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are
not strictly applied.—The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very
heart of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to
administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due
process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal
or trial type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied.

Same; Same; In Autencio v. Mañara, 449 SCRA 46 (2005), it was held that defects in procedural due
process may be cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.—Assuming arguendo that NPI was somehow
deprived of due process by either of the labor tribunals, such defect was cured by: (a) NPI’s filing of
its motion for reconsideration before the NLRC; (b) the NLRC’s subsequent issuance of its Resolution
dated August 30, 2013 wherein the tribunal considered all of NPI’s arguments as contained in its
motion; and (c) NPI’s subsequent elevation of the case to the CA. In Gonzales v. Civil Service
Commission, 490 SCRA 741 (2006), the Court reiterated the rule that “[a]ny seeming defect in [the]
observance [of due process] is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration,” and that “denial of
due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who [was] afforded the opportunity to be
heard x x x.” Similarly, in Autencio v. Mañara, 449 SCRA 46 (2005), it was held that defects in
procedural due process may be cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or
to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. Puedan, Jr.,
816 SCRA 243, G.R. No. 220617 January 30, 2017