G.R. No. 172624
"x x x.
Petitioners were denied the right to due process.
A careful consideration of the facts of the case convinces us that petitioners’ appeal should have been given due course. It may be recalled that respondent failed to timely submit its position paper when required by the Labor Arbiter, hence, the case was submitted for decision sans the same. Nonetheless, when respondent filed its position paper, the Labor Arbiter admitted the same and relied on it in coming up with a decision that petitioners were validly terminated. More important is that petitioners were not even furnished a copy of respondent’s position paper in order for them to refute the contents and allegations therein. And since neither did respondent appear in any of the hearings conducted before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners were never really afforded an opportunity to rebut respondent’s allegations and charges against them or to introduce evidence to refute them. Petitioners’ right to due process was thus clearly violated.
Indeed, labor tribunals are mandated to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily, objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure.[27] However, in every proceeding before it, the fundamental and essential requirements of due process should not to be ignored but must at all times be respected.[28] Besides, petitioners’ case concerns their job, considered as a property right, of which they could not be deprived of without due process.[29]
From the foregoing considerations, we find that the NLRC gravely erred in denying due course to petitioners’ appeal and in sustaining the Labor Arbiter’s Decision as same infringed upon petitioners’ right to due process. We, therefore, remand the case to the Labor Arbiter to afford petitioners the opportunity to refute the allegations advanced by respondent, with the assistance of their counsel de oficio.
x x x."
