G.R. NO. 157603 - NEECO II, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) AND EDUARDO CAIRLAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the complainant illegal. Respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position and to pay his backwages (amounting to P220,000.00 at the promulgation of the decision until actual reinstatement). [12] On 12 November 1999, petitioner filed its Appeal Memorandum, which public respondent NLRC dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio, in its Resolution [13] dated 31 August 2000. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was met with equal lack of success in the NLRCs Resolution dated 31 May 2001. [14] On appeal, the Court of Appeals [15] upheld the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter in the now assailed Decision dated 30 September 2002. It held: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. As a legal consequence, the assailed Decision of Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio, dated 26 September 1999; Decision on Appeal of public respondent National Labor Relations Commissions (sic), dated 31 August 2000, denying petitioners appeal; and Resolution of public respondent NLRC, dated 31 May 2001, denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. [16] Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution [17] dated 07 March 2003, petitioner now lays its appeal before this Court via a petition for review where it assigns the following errors to the Court of Appeals, viz: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LABOR ARBITER DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT ISSUING AN ORDER SUBMITTING THE CASE FOR RESOLUTION AND IN DENYING THE PETITIONERS MOTION TO SET THE CASE FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS IN THE SAME DECISION. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN THE FINDINGS OF FACTS WHICH IF NOT CORRECTED WOULD CAUSE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OR INJURY TO THE PETITIONER. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LABOR ARBITER COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN FINDING THE DISMISSAL OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL. [18] Cutting through the verbiage, the issues in this case are: (1) whether or not petitioner was accorded due process; and (2) whether or not petitioner is guilty of illegally dismissing private respondent. A critical point of contention made by the petitioner is whether or not it was accorded due process in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner assiduously argues that it was treated unfairly by the Labor Arbiter when the latter proceeded to decide the case on the sole basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, despite the factual nature of the issues r