G.R. No. 103670 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EFREN MANABO AND IRENEO SORIANO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated June 26, 1990 is hereby reversed and respondent Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (now Philippine National Construction Corporation) is hereby ordered to pay as his separation pay to Efren Manabo, the amount of SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY TWO AND 80/100 PESOS (P74,692.80); and similarly to Ireneo Soriano, the sum of ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY SIX AND 80/100 PESOS (P111,196.80). [5] Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration stating that it was not aware of the appeal interposed by private respondents, as it was not furnished a copy of private respondents memorandum of appeal. Instead, petitioner directly filed this petition for certiorari. We find the petition meritorious. Petitioner claims that respondent NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it entertained the instant appeal when the same is null and void. In this regard, the Solicitor General recommends that the NLRC decision be set aside on the ground that petitioner was denied due process and that further proceedings be held to afford petitioner the opportunity to participate therein. [6] After a careful examination of the records, the Court fully agrees with the Solicitor Generals view that the proceedings before the NLRC were tainted with due process violation. It appears that petitioner was not a participant in the appeal interposed by private respondents. Apparently, such non-participation was never petitioners choice as the record is bereft of any indication that petitioner was ever informed or notified of private respondents appeal. There is no proof that petitioner was furnished a copy of private respondents Memorandum of Appeal, nor was it required to comment thereon. No reference is made whatsoever in the NLRC Decision to any argument, position or comment raised by petitioner in response to the appeal. That petitioner was denied due process is well-substantiated. The NLRCs grave omission to afford petitioner a chance to be heard on appeal is a clear violation of its constitutional right and has the effect of rendering its judgment null and void. [7] It is a cardinal rule in law that a decision or judgment is fatally defective if rendered in violation of a party-litigants right to due process. Petitioners non-filing of a motion for reconsideration of the NLRCs decision is understandable considering that it was deprived of due process. The Court has ruled that a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with prior to commencement of an action for certiorari where the decision is a patent nullity [8] or where petitioner was deprived of due process. [9] It must be pointed out though, that the fault lies with the NLRC and not with private respondents. While the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC require proof of service on the other party of the appeal (Rule VI, Sec. 3[a]), non-compliance thereof will present no obstacle to the perfection of the appeal n