Cañete v. National Labor Relations Commission

PANGANIBAN, J.:

It, through their own fault or inaction, parties fail to fully air their side before the labor arbiter, the remand of their case for further proceedings is not justified. With substantial justice as goal, the labor arbiters are given wide latitude in conducting proceedings before them. Subject to the requirements of due process, they may decide the cases on the basis of pleadings, documents and evidence filed before them by the parties.

A formal or trial-type is not hearing is not always necessary. The Case Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the July 31, 1997 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),1the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is [v]acated and [s]et [a]side, and a new one entered remanding this case to the Arbitration Branch of Origin for further proceeding.2 Likewise challenged in this petition is the September 25, 1997 Resolution of the NLRC denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.ℒαwρhi৷ The dispositive portion of the labor arbiter's Decision,3 which was set aside by the NLRC, reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in the above-entitled case: (1) Declaring Benedicto Cañete and Edgar Isabida to have been illegally dismissed, and ordering respondent Abraham Abajo to pay them backwages and separation pay as hereinafter specified; and (2) Also ordering respondent Abraham Abajo to pay Benedicto Cañete and Edgar Isabida wage differentials, 13th month pay and holiday pay, as set forth below together with backwages and separation pay, viz : Benedicto Cañete Backwages ------ P6,971.18 Separation Pay ------ 6,337.44 Wage Differentials ------ 21,149.66 13th Month Pay ------ 4,257.49 Holiday Pay ------ 1,140.10