Delos Santos v.

National Labor Relations Commission

FACTS:

Petitioner De los Santos worked as a janitor at Camara Steel Industries. One day, while doing his
usual chores, he momentarily left his pushcart to answer the call of Narciso Honrado, scrap in-charge,
who summoned him to the company clinic. Thereafter, on his way out of the gate, the security guard on
duty found 2 pieces of electric cable in the box handed to him by Honrado. Petitioner explained that the
electric cord was declared a scrap by Honrado. The latter admitted responsibility. The general manager
issued a memorandum acknowledging, receipt of Honrado's letter of apology and exculpated him of any
wrongdoing. However, the company, through its counsel, still filed a criminal complaint for frustrated
qualified theft against Honrado and herein petitioner De los Santos.

The complaint was subsequently dismissed for lack of evidence. In the meantime, Camara Steel
terminated De los Santos's services allegedly upon request of Top-Flite, his manpower agency. De los
Santos sought recourse with the Labor Arbiter who rendered a decision ordering respondent Camara Steel
to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights. Camara Steel went to the NLRC for
recourse and Top-Flite filed its motion for intervention. The NLRC reversed the labor arbiter and ordered
the return of the entire records of the case to the arbitration branch of origin for further proceedings.

In its Decision, NLRC specified the reasons for the remand to the Labor Arbiter —

First, as respondents have broadly implied, having alleged that he was an employee of
Camara Steel, it was complainant's burden to prove this allegation as a fact, not merely through
his uncorroborated statements but through independent evidence. As noted by respondents, he
has not submitted one piece of evidence to support his premise on this matter except for his
sworn statement. xxx xxx xxx

ISSUES:

W/N De Los Santos was Denied due process - YES

W/N Top-Flite was denied Due-Process. (Discussion about procedural Due Process) - NO

PETITIONER’s Arguments:

Petitioner De los Santos contends that NLRC was in grave error when it ruled that, with the
exception of a bare assertion on his sworn statement, he "has not submitted one piece of evidence to
support his premise" that he was in fact an employee of CAMARA STEEL.

To underscore NLRC's oversight, petitioner brings to our attention and specifies the pieces of
evidence which he presented before the Labor Arbiter on 19 November 1993 —

All these pieces of evidence which, according to petitioner De los Santos, were not properly
considered by NLRC, plainly and clearly show that the power of control and supervision over him was
exercised solely and exclusively by the managers and supervisors of CAMARA STEEL. Even the power to
dismiss was also lodged with CAMARA STEEL when it admitted in page 3 of its Reply that upon request by
Top-Flite, the steel company terminated his employment after being allegedly caught committing theft.

HELD:

1. Delos Santos

As to whether petitioner De los Santos was illegally terminated from his employment, we are in
full agreement with the Labor Arbiter's finding that he was illegally dismissed. As correctly observed by
the Labor Arbiter, it was Narciso Honrado, scrap in- charge, who handed the box containing the electrical
cables to De los Santos. No shred of evidence can show that De los Santos was aware of its contents, or
if ever, that he conspired with Honrado in bilking the company of its property. What is certain however
is that while Honrado admitted, in a letter of apology, his culpability for the unfortunate incident and was
unconditionally forgiven by the company, De los Santos was not only unceremoniously dismissed from
service but was charged before the court for qualified theft (later dismissed by the public prosecutor for
lack of evidence). For sure, De los Santos cannot be held more guilty than Honrado who, being the scrap
in-charge, had the power to classify the cables concerned as scrap.

Neither can we gratify CAMARA STEEL's contention that petitioner was validly dismissed for loss
of trust and confidence.

Of course, it must be stressed that loss of confidence as a just cause for the termination of
employment is based on the premise that the employee holds a position of trust and confidence, as when
he is entrusted with responsibility involving delicate matters, and the task of a janitor does not fall
squarely under this category.

Be that as it may, Top-Flite, much less CAMARA STEEL, cannot dictate, by the mere expedient of
a unilateral declaration in a contract, the character of its business, it being crucial that its character be
measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute.

2. Top-Flite

In its comment respondent CAMARA STEEL emphatically argues that Top-Flite, although
impleaded as respondent in NLRC-NCR Cases Nos. 00-0704761-93 and 00- 0805061-93, subject of the
present appeal, was never summoned for which reason it was deprived of procedural due process;
basically the same line of argument adopted by the NLRC in its decision to remand the case to the
arbitration branch of origin. CAMARA STEEL obviously wants to impress upon us that Top-Mite, being a
necessary party, should have been summoned and the failure to do so would justify the remand of the
case to the Labor Arbiter.

We are not persuaded. The records show that Top-Flite was not only impleaded in the
aforementioned case but was in fact afforded an opportunity to be heard when it submitted a position
paper. This much was admitted by Top-Flite in par. 5 of its Motion for Intervention where it stated that
"movant submitted its position paper in the cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph but the Presiding
Arbiter ignored the clear and legal basis of the position of the movant." In other words, the failure of Top-
Flite to receive summons was not a fatal procedural flaw because it was never deprived of the
opportunity to ventilate its side and challenge petitioner in its position paper, not to mention the
comment which it submitted through counsel before this Court. 1155 It moved to intervene not because
it had no notice of the proceedings but because its position paper allegedly was not considered by the
Labor Arbiter. While jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired by service of
summons, it can also be acquired by voluntary appearance before the court which includes submission
of pleadings in compliance with the order of the court or tribunal. A fortiori, administrative tribunals
exercising quasi- judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements subject
to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases
presented before them. In labor cases, a punctilious adherence to stringent technical rules may be
relaxed in the interest of the workingman. A remand of the case, as the NLRC envisions, would compel
petitioner, a lowly worker, to tread once again the calvary of a protracted litigation and Magellate him
into submission with the lash of technicality.