HEIRS OF ROMULA GANNABAN, NAMELY, MARITA G. DAVID, ANTONIO A.

GANNABAN, MANUEL A. GANNABAN AND VIRGINIA A. DAQUIOAG, petitioner

vs.
HON. RAMON J. P. PAJE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), ET AL., respondent.

Docket No.: G.R. No. 217132

Date: August 15, 2014
Ponente: Buena, L

FACTS
● Germano was an employee of Gandara MiI Supply, owned by Milagros Sy.
● Gandara Mill Supply is a small business with two employees doing manual work, one of them
being Germano. Gemano did not report to work from Feb 6 1995 to Feb 11 1995 because his
wife was about to deliver their baby. Subsequently, his wife gave birth on Feb 12.
● Sy extended financial assistance to the couple at the same time.
● Sy avers that Germano's absence, without informing him, resulted in untold difficulties in its
operation, being left with only one worker. Germano returned to work two weeks after and was
personally told by Sy that another person had been hired to take his place, and that he may be re-
admitted in June 1996.
● Germano instituted an illegal dismissal complaint with the DOLE on Feb 27, 1995. Germano
refused the PHP5,000 offered by Sy "to buy peace."
● The Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit position papers, with the deadline on April 28,
1995, extended to May 5, 1996. Sy failed to submit their position paper.
● The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on January 29. 1996, finding illegal dismissal and ordered
Gandara Mill Supply and/or Sy to pay complainant Silvestre Germano the sum of sixty
P65,685.90 representing separation pay, backwages, SLIP and attorney's fee.
● Sy appealed to the NLRC on March 4, 1996. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to post a
cash or surety bond on May 22, 1996. Sy invoked a ground for exemption from posting a bond
due to their business being small, or an extension of up to 20 days to put up a bond.
● Meanwhile, a Motion for Execution was granted in favor of Germano on Sept 6. 1996. Sy filed
this action for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE/S
1. Whether or Not the NLR acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal
2. Whether or Not the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in awarding an amount Sy claims
to be excessive.
 RULING

1.
NO. Sy was afforded a chance to show that Germano was not legally dismissed, but failed to
discharge its burden of proof.

Sy was not denied the right to be heard. Sy's bare allegation that it was denied the right to be
heard is negated by the Labor Arbiter's extension of much leniency to petitioner by allowing the latter to
submit a position paper on April 28, 1995, then on May 5, 1996, and finally, seven (7) days from receipt
of the Order dated May 9, 1995. Generally, reglementary periods are strictly observed to the end that
orderly administration of justice be safeguarded. In the case under consideration, the public respondent
had been quite liberal in observing and enforcing the rules. Consequently, petitioner's contention of denial
of opportunity to be heard is bereft of factual basis. Neither can grave error be ascribed to NLRC for
handing down its decision without petitioner's Position Paper. By its inaction, Sy was properly considered
to have waived or forfeited the right to refute private respondent's stance. Petitioners cannot now be
permitted to belatedly complain of a denial of due process. That Sy was not represented by a lawyer in all
the aforesaid procedures was solely attributable to its own negligence or inattention to the case. e a
complain of a denial of due process

Germano was illegally dismissed. While a prolonged absence without leave may constitute as a just cause
of dismissal, its legality stems from the non-observance of due process. Applying the WenPhil Doctrine
by analogy, where dismissal was not preceded by the twin requirement of notice and hearing, the legality
of the dismissal in question, is under heavy clouds and therefore illegal. Neither can it be said that
Germano was merely suspended, as he was offered to be readmitted in June the following year. The
supposed suspension was expected to last for more than the period allowed by law. Thus, making the
suspension constitutive of a legal dismissal.

Granting arguendo that Germano's absence resulted in undue difficulty to the smooth operations of Sy's
business, considering the situation of Germano, his dismissal is unwarranted on holding the
constitutional mandate of protection to labor, the rigid rules of procedure may sometimes be dispensed
with to give room for compassion. Given the premises, the doctrine of "compassionate justice" is
applicable considering that the private respondent is the breadwinner of his family. The Social Justice
policy mandates a compassionate attitude toward the working class in its relation to management. In
calling for the protection to labor, the Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by the employee,
nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanctions that may be applied to him in the light of the many
disadvantages that weigh heavily on him like an albatross on his neck.

2.
NO. Time and again, the court held that factual findings by the Labor Arbiter are to be
treated as final absent any showing that he erred in his evaluation.

Untenable is petitioner's contention that the said amount awarded, representing backwages, separation pay
and attorney's fee is excessive and tantamount to a deprivation of petitioner's property without due
process of Law. Once a finding of illegal dismissal is established, an award of separation pay and
backwages is in order and binding upon the court, unless the contrary is proved. The court shares the
Labor Arbiter's observation and ratiocination that the amount of the questioned award is not excessive in
light of prevailing economic conditions.

The Petition is Dismissed.

APPLICATION