You are on page 1of 2

#130) ABLAZA VS.

CIR
FACTS:
Association of Democratic Labor Organizations (ADLO) filed a complaint against
Cerisco Blackcat Trading (CBT). However, defendant CBT failed to file its answer or
any responsive pleading within the reglementary period even though record shows
that summons were served on them. CIR then declared CBT in default and allowed
the ADLO to present evidence ex-parte. The court ruled in favor of ADLO ordering
the CBT to pay the necessary amount for each complainants. The money value
amounted to P223,098.04. The ADLO moved for the issuance of the writ of
execution which was granted by the court.
However, when the deputy sheriff, Gilbert Lorenzo, levied upon petitioner Victoria
Ablazas personal properties, she then filed an urgent petition for relief alleging that
she was completely and totally unaware of any suit for a sum of money against her
as she has not been lawfully summoned and informed of any such case.
Record shows that the sheriff attempted to serve the proper summons and notices
to the petitioners but was deliberately denied by those who are found in the said
address. Until the bailiff resorted to substituted service by tendering a copy to the
building caretaker who refused to sign and give his name that July 27, 1970.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners were denied of due process by not being duly served by
the required notices?
RULING: No. They were not denied of their due process because they are duly
notified.
It was held that there was no denial of due process where it was established that
the petitioners were duly served with the requisite notices and the records indicate
beyond doubt that the respondent in the case before the CIR was adequately given
the necessary notice and that the owners of Cerisco Blackcat Trading deliberately
avoided acknowledgment of the service of summons. Moreover, in quasi judicial
proceedings in NLRC and its arbitration branch procedural rules governing service of
summons are not strictly construed but a substantial compliance thereof is enough.
In this case, the substituted service resorted by the bailiff is enough to bind Ablaza
as the owner of the known CBT.

#131) VALLADOLID VS. INCIONG


FACTS: Valladolid filed a petition for certiorari praying for the modification of the
orderof the Deputy Minister of Labor so as to grant him backwages. While the JRM
Company assails that respondent Regional Director Francisco Estrella committed
grave abuse of discretion and that he disregarded procedural requirement in the
hearing of the present controversy thus depriving petitioner of its right to due
process.
On their position paper(JRM), they attached an affidavit which showed that Ricardo
Valladolid is an employee of the J.R.M. Company specifically in the Copacabana
Apartment-Hotel and it was found out that he was betraying his own employer by
divulging confidential business matters to their competitor, Tropicana, through an
entrapment conceived by the management of Copacabana Apartment Hotel.
On December 29, 1978 or after the entrapment scheme, Valladolid filed a written
request of a five day vacation leave. However after the five days he did not report
for work but instead sent a telegram requesting that he may be given another 15
days for he was confined for flu. And on the end of the 15th day the wife called
asking for a 30 days sick leave and the same was allegedly granted. This was
denied by JRM. He reported for work on February 16, 1979 but allegedly Mr. Yu,the
Executive Vice-President, refused to admit him and instead asks him to resign.
On February 24, 1979, JRM sent a letter to Valladolid signed by Daniel T. Yu, advising
him of his preventive suspension effective February 26, 1979 preparatory to the
termination of his services 10 days from receipt of a copy of the application for
clearance to dismiss him. The grounds given were: (1) Willful Breach of Trust for
having divulged, in various instances, confidential business matters to competitors
of the company; and (2) Gross Neglect of Duty for having been absent without leave
or notice for more than 25 days, to the detriment of the company. However, the
applicatioin for clearance with preventive suspension was denied.
ISSUE: WON JRM was deprived of his due process.
RULING: JRM cannot claim that it was deprived of due process considering that
applications for clearance have to be summarily investigated and a decision
required to be rendered within ten (10) days from the filing of the opposition. As this
Court had occasion to hold there is no violation of due process where the Regional
Director merely required the submission of position papers and resolved the case
summarily thereafter.

#132) NEECO II vs. NLRC