WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
vs SAMANIEGO  Petitioners filed with the NLRC an Urgent Petition to Change or
[G.R. Nos. 146653-54, February 20, 2006]
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Facts:
 Ricardo Samaniego was initially hired by Unilab as a Professional
Service Representative of its marketing arm, Westmont.
 He was later promoted as a Senior Business Development
Associate, and was assigned to Isabela as Acting District Manager
of Westmont and Chairman of Unilab Special Projects.
 He was then transferred to Metro Manila pending the
investigation of his subordinate and physicians of Region II
involved in a sales discount and Rx trade-off controversy.
 He was thereafter placed under floating status and was assigned
to perform duties not connected with his position.
o This transfer resulted in the diminution of his salary.
 Ricardo Samaniego then filed with the Office of the Labor Arbiter
a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Westmont
and Unilab, as well as Unilab’s Officer.
 Westmont and Unilab filed a motion to dismiss Samaniego’s
complaint on the ground of improper venue and lack of cause of
action.
o They argued that it should be filed with the NLRC in
Manila, not with the Office of the Labor Arbiter in
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, and that the action should be
against Westmont, Samaniego’s employer.
 The Labor Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss.
o He cites Section 1, Rule IV, of the NLRC Rules and
Procedure allowing the Labor Arbiter to order a change
of venue in meritous cases, he then set the case for
preliminary conference during which the petitioners
expressly reserved their right to contest the order
denying motion to dismiss.
Transfer Venue and a motion to suspend proceedings in view of
the pendency of their petition.
 The Labor Arbiter issued an order directing parties to submit their
respective papers and supporting documents within 20 days from
notice, after which the case shall be submitted for decision.
 The NLRC acting on the petition to change venue, ordered the
Labor Arbiter to forward the records of the case.
 The Labor Arbiter retained a complete duplicate set of the original
records and set the case for hearing, it was then that the
petitioners filed a motion for cancellation of the hearings because
their petition for change of venue remained unresolved.
 Petitioners however did not submit their position papers and did
not attend hearing, thus the Labor Arbiter considered the case
submitted for Decision based on the records and the evidence
submitted by Samaniego and rendered a decision finding that
Samaniego was illegally and unjustly dismissed constructively.
 Petitioners appealed to the NLRC who dismissed the petition for
change of venue.
o They were arguing that it was the Labor Arbiter in
Cagayan, being the place of Samaniego’s work in Isabela,
who had the jurisdiction, that when the cause of action
arose.
 However it also declared the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null
and void because it continued to conduct further proceedings
despite the pendency of the appeal-treated Urgent Petition for
Change thus denying Westmont and Unilab of due process.
 Both Parties applied for motion for reconsideration but both were
denied by the NLRC.
 On January 8, 2001, the Court of Appeals, acting on the parties’
petitions for certiorari, rendered its Decision setting aside the
NLRC Resolutions and affirming with modification the Labor
Arbiter’s.
  Aggrieved, petitioner now files this appeal before the SC for
review on certiorari.
Issue
1. Did Court of Appeals err in denying their motion to dismiss by reason of
improper venue? ->NO
2. Were Westmont and Unilab are denied of due process? -> NO
Held
 The petition to change or transfer venue filed by herein
petitioners with the NLRC is not the proper remedy to assail the
Labor Arbiter’s order denying their motion to dismiss.
o Because such order is merely interlocutory, hence not
appealable as provided in Section 3 of the 1997 NLRC
Rules and Procedures.
o An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and
so the proper in such a case is to appeal after a decision
has been rendered.
 Assuming that the petition to change or transfer venue is the
proper remedy, still we find that the CA did not err in sustaining
the Labor Arbiter’s Order of denying the motion to dismiss
because under the 1997 NLRC rules and procedure under Section
1, All cases which the Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and
decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having
jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant/petitioner.
o The question of venue essentially relates to the trial and
touches more upon the convenience of the parties,
rather than upon the substance and merits of the case.
 Our permissive rules underlying the provisions on venue are
intended to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses
and to promote the end of justice.
o This axiom all the more finds applicability in cases
involving labor and management because of the
principle, paramount in our jurisdiction, that the State
shall afford to full protection of labor.
 Because Samaniego’s regular place of assignment was in Isabela
when he was transferred to Metro Manila or when the cause of
action arose clearly, the Appellate Court was correct in Affirming
the Labor Arbiter’s finding that the proper venue is in the RAB No.
II at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
 On the contention that Westmont and Unilab that they were
denied due process, well settled is the rule that the essence of
due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to
administrative proceeding, an opportunity to explain one’s side or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.
 The requirement of due process in labor cases before a Labor
Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to
submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach
all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that
would prove their respective claims, in the event that the Labor
Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted of
that such hearing was not necessary.
 As shown by the records, the Labor Arbiter gave Westmont and
Unilab, not only once, but thrice, the opportunity to submit their
position papers and supporting affidavits and documents. But
they were obstinate. Clearly, they were not denied their right to
due process.
Disposition: The assailed decision of the CA is affirmed.