Mlguel Slngson vs Nutlonul Lubor Relutlons

Commlsslon & Phlllpplne Alrllnes

6112010

Due Process Dlsmlssul of Employees
Slngson wus un employee of PAL. On 7 Jun 1991, u Jupunese nutlonul ulleged thut Slngson extorted money from her
(S200.00) by uccuslng her of huvlng excess bugguge; und thut to settle the lssue she needs to puy suld umount to hlm.
Slngson wus luter lnvestlguted und the lnvestlgutlng commlttee found hlm gullty. PAL then dlsmlssed Slngson from
employment. Slngson then flled u cuse before NLRC ugulnst PAL for lllegul dlsmlssul, uttys fees und dumuges. Lubor
Arblter Ruul Aqulno ruled ln fuvor of Slngson us he found PALs slde lnsufflclent to dlsmlss Slngson. PAL uppeuled to the
NLRC. The 2
nd
Dlvlslon, composed of Culuycuy, Ruyulu former Arblter Ruul Aqulno, of the NLRC took cognlzunce of the
cuse. NLRC reversed the declslon of Aqulno. Slngson moved for reconslderutlon whlch wus denled by NLRC, thls tlme
only Culuycuy & Ruyulu voted.
ISSUE: Whether or not Slngson wus denled of due process.
HELD: The SC ruled thut Slngson wus denled due process. The SC held thut Slngson wus denled due process when
Aqulno purtlclputed, us presldlng commlssloner of the 2nd Dlvlslon of the NLRC, ln revlewlng PALs uppeul. He wus
revlewlng hls own declslon us u former lubor urblter. Under Rule VII, Sectlon 2 (b) of the New Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC, euch Dlvlslon shull conslst of one member from the publlc sector who shull uct us the Presldlng Commlssloner und
one member euch from the workers und employers sectors, respectlvely. The composltlon of the Dlvlslon guuruntees equul
representutlon und lmpurtlullty umong lts members. Thus, lltlgunts ure entltled to u revlew of three (3) commlssloners who
ure lmpurtlul rlght from the sturt of the process of revlew. Commlssloner Aqulno cun hurdly be consldered lmpurtlul slnce
he wus the urblter who declded the cuse under revlew. He should huve lnhlblted hlmself from uny purtlclputlon ln thls cuse.
The lnflrmlty of the resolutlon wus not cured by the fuct thut the motlon for reconslderutlon of Slngson wus denled by two
commlssloners und wlthout the purtlclputlon of Aqulno. The rlght of petltloner to un lmpurtlul revlew of hls uppeul sturts
from the tlme he flled hls uppeul. He ls not only entltled to un lmpurtlul trlbunul ln the resolutlon of hls motlon for
reconslderutlon. Moreover, hls rlght ls to un lmpurtlul revlew of three commlssloners. The denlul of Slngsons rlght to un
lmpurtlul revlew of hls uppeul ls not un lnnocuous error. It neguted hls rlght to due process.