 DAYAG, et al v CANIZARES, NLRC, G.R. NO.

124193, March 6, 1998

FACTS:
Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young, a building
contractor doing business in the name of Young’s construction. In 1991, they were transferred to
Cebu City to work for Young’s Shoemart Cebu Project. Petitioner William Dayag asked
permission to go to Manila to attend family matters and was allowed to do so but was not paid
for January 23-30 due to his accountability for the loss of certain construction tools. The other
petitioners left due to harassment by young. Thereafter, petitioner banded together and filed a
complaint against Young before the NCR Arbitration Branch NLRC which was assigned to the
respondent Labor Arbiter Canizares.
Further, Young filed a “Motion to transfer the case” to the Reginal Arbitration Brach,
Region VII of the NLRC. He contended that the case should be filed in Cebu City because it is
the location of the workplace of the petitioner. However, it was opposed by the petitioner on the
ground that they are both form Metro Manila and that they could not afford trips to Cebu, in
addition, they claimed that respondent’s main office is in Corinthian Garden in Quezon City.
Labor Arbiter Cenozares granted Young’s motion to transfer the case in Cebu. Petitioner
appealed to NLRC but such was dismissed. Hence, they filed a MFR and this time the
commission set aside its previous decision and remanded the case to the original arbitration
branch of the NCR for further proceedings. On the other hand, Young filed his own MFR and the
NLRC reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to Cebu City.

ISSUE:
Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained
Young’s motion to transfer.

HELD:
No.
The SC ruled that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and
not on technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an opposition on the “motion to transfer case”
which was considered by Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Hence, there is no showing that they have
been unduly prejudiced by the motion’s failure to give notice and hearing.
However, Young cannot derive comfort from this petition. The SC held that the question
of venue relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits
of the case. This is to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witness and to promote the
ends of justice under the principle that the state shall afford protection to labor. The reason for
this is that the worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party, the nearest governmental
machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is
not to be given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will
unduly burden the former.
WHEREFORE, petition is granted.