G.R. No. 147125 - SHOPPES MANILA, INC., VS. THE HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ERMITA ABRASALDO-CUYUCA AND LORIE TORNO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Shoppes Manila, Inc., is declared to have illegally dismissed Lorie Torno and the former is ordered to pay the latter the amount of P62,530.00 representing backwages and P19,240.00 as separation pay. [6] LA Cuyuca declared that the private respondent was denied of her right to due process before she was dismissed from her employment and that the petitioner failed to show that it notified the private respondent of the charges against her. The petitioner also failed to show that the private respondent received the notice of dismissal. Hence, the dismissal of the private respondent was illegal. However, according to the labor arbiter, reinstatement could no longer be effected, as the relationship between the private respondent and the petitioner had been strained and ruptured. The private respondents claims for non-payment of service incentive leave and 13th-month pay were denied for her failure to specify the period covered therein. Her claim of underpayment of wages (wage differential) was, likewise, denied, as it was not included in the original complaint. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC, alleging that it was deprived of its right to a formal hearing before the labor arbiter rendered her decision. It argued that while the conduct of hearing is not mandatory in labor cases, the Labor Arbiter was mandated to do so in this case because LA Tumanong had already declared that a formal hearing was necessary. Hence, the petitioner had acquired a vested right thereto. LA Cuyucas failure to conduct a hearing deprived the petitioner of its vested right; consequently, her decision was null and void. On March 17, 1999, the NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision of the labor arbiter. The dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the decision affirmed en ( sic ) toto. [7] The NLRC reasoned that a formal hearing of the case on its merits is not mandatory in labor cases but is dependent on the discretion of the labor arbiter who has the sole power to determine whether or not there is a need for a hearing. Thus, in finding that there was no longer a need to conduct a hearing before rendering judgment of the case on its merits, LA Cuyuca cannot be said to have committed an error. The NLRC also ruled that no error could be imputed to LA Cuyuca when she found that the petitioner did not comply with the two-notice requirement upon the petitioners failure to show that (a) she was notified of the charges against her, and (b) the notice of dismissal was sent to her. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated May 18, 1999. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals. The petitioner alleged therein that LA Cuyuca committed a grave abuse of discretion when sh