-
Porfirio Auxilio vs NLRCG.R. No. 82189 August 2, 1990
Facts:Petitioner, employed by private respondent Baguio Country
Club Corporation as a houseman
and later on a regular employee, was placed under preventive
suspension due to his possibleinvolvement in the theft. In the
polygraph report, it was declared that petitioner offered no
satisfactoryexplanation for the adverse result of the polygraph
test conducted on him. Petitioner was asked toappear for
investigation by the management. However, no further examination
was conducted by thepolice or the employer because petitioner could
not be found in his residence and the notices sent tohim were
rejected by his wife. Thus, he was terminated for "loss of trust
and confidence" and for"giving false statement during official
investigation."
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
Labor Arbiter alleging that he wasdismissed on mere suspicion that
he stole the money and that he was denied an opportunity to
defendhimself pursuant to the provision of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between private respondentand the union of
which petitioner was a member.
Issue: Whether or not the grievance procedure provided for in
the CBA was strictly observed.
Ruling:Yes. Petitioner was afforded due process of law. There is
convincing and sufficient evidence on
record to show that private respondent corporation fully
complied with the notice and hearingrequirements of due process.
Petitioner was notified and repeatedly invited for further
investigation buthe "chose to ignore" the said notices by his
"convenient absence" from his residence and the continuedrefusal by
his wife to receive the notices. Private respondent cannot be
faulted as petitioner had ampleopportunity to be heard. Since he
unjustifiably rejected the opportunity, petitioner cannot now
complainthat he was denied due process of law.
-
Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of WorkersG.R. No.
178296 January 12, 2011
Facts:Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of union
registration against respondent because the
latter failed to submit to the BLR its annual financial report
for several years and the list of its memberssince it filed its
registration papers. Petition was denied, hence, the petitioner
appealed to the BLR. TheBLC Director inhibited so the DOLE
Secretary took cognizance of the appeal and she dismissed
theappeal.
Issue: Whether or not the DOLE Secretary is allowed to take
cognizance of the appeal.
Ruling:When the DOLE Secretary resolved the appeal, she merely
stepped into the shoes of the BLR
Director and performed a function that the latter could not
himself perform. She did so pursuant to herpower of supervision and
control over the BLR.
If a certain power or authority is vested by law upon the
Department Secretary, then such poweror authority may be exercised
directly by the President, who exercises supervision and control
over thedepartments. This principle was incorporated in the
Administrative Code of 1987, which definessupervision and control
as including the authority to act directly whenever a specific
function isentrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate.
Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that the
DOLE Secretary, as the personexercising the power of supervision
and control over the BLR, has the authority to directly exercise
thequasi-judicial function entrusted by law to the BLR
Director.
-
LABOR RELATIONSCase Digests
1. HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS, G.R. No.
178296, January 12, 2011
2. PORIFIRIO AUXILIO vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 82189,August 2, 1990
Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block AProfessor: Atty Mila
Raquid-Arroyo
