Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. Leogardo, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Manuel Martinez was employed by petitioner Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. as a salesman in Cebu City. Petitioner terminated his employment in 1976 due to abandonment of work. A voluntary arbitrator ruled in favor of Martinez, ordering his reinstatement with backwages of P16,192.00, as his original route was abolished. Petitioner offered Martinez a transfer as salesman in Tubigon, Bohol, which Martinez refused. Subsequently, Martinez was ordered reinstated as a salesman in Cebu City with backwages of P17,152.00 and assigned to Route 64 within Cebu City. Martinez again refused this assignment. Procedural History: Due to Martinez's continued refusal to report for work, petitioner applied for clearance to dismiss him for abandonment of work. The Regional Director granted this clearance ex-parte on February 1, 1979. Martinez filed a motion to dissolve the clearance, alleging he was not heard. The Regional Director set the case for reception of Martinez's evidence, but Martinez failed to appear on the scheduled dates, leading to the dismissal of his motion for lack of interest. Martinez appealed this dismissal to the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). The Petition: The Deputy Minister of Labor, Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., issued an order dated November 23, 1982, setting aside the Regional Director's order and rendering a new judgment ordering the reinstatement of Martinez with full backwages for two years, pursuant to the voluntary arbitrator's decision. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Deputy Minister's order, alleging it was issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General, representing the public respondent, recommended that the questioned order be set aside and the case be remanded to the Regional Director for a hearing on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing an order that set aside the Regional Director's dismissal of Martinez's motion and rendered a new judgment without Martinez having presented evidence to support his motion to dissolve the ex-parte clearance for dismissal. Whether the Deputy Minister erred in assuming the nature of Martinez's appeal, ordering reinstatement with backwages without a proper reception of evidence, and issuing orders based on superseded information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the questioned order of the Deputy Minister dated November 23, 1982. It ordered the public respondent to remand the case to the Regional Director of Labor Regional Office No. VII to receive the evidence of private respondent Manuel Martinez on his motion to annul the clearance for his dismissal and, thereafter, to decide said motion on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General's recommendation to set aside the Deputy Minister's order. The Court found that the subject of Martinez's appeal to the MOLE was not his dismissal itself, but rather the dismissal of his motion to present evidence concerning the ex-parte clearance for his dismissal. Since Martinez failed to avail of the opportunity to present evidence, causing his motion to be dismissed, it was unwarranted for the Deputy Minister to render a decision favorable to Martinez before he had presented any evidence in support of his motion. This procedural misstep constituted an error. On Issue 2: The Court noted that the Deputy Minister's order appeared to be issued with some confusion. It erroneously assumed Martinez was being assigned to Tubigon, Bohol, when that order had already been set aside. Furthermore, the Deputy Minister ordered the petitioner to pay Martinez backwages for two years, an amount that had already been complied with in connection with a previous judgment. The Court also pointed out that while Martinez might have had reasons to refuse the Tubigon assignment, his rejection of the new assignment in Cebu City, even if a different route, might not constitute a valid justification for refusing to report for work. The core issue was the procedural impropriety of the Deputy Minister's ruling without a proper reception of evidence on Martinez's motion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a party appealing the dismissal of a motion to present evidence in a clearance to dismiss case must be given an opportunity to present such evidence. The Deputy Minister's order was set aside because it granted relief to the private respondent without the latter having presented any evidence to support his motion to dissolve the ex-parte clearance for dismissal, thereby violating procedural due process.