Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 80685 (March 16, 1989)

    Uploaded by

    Jolynne Anne Gatica
    Petitioner, who owned a snack mobile business, was accused by his employees of underpaying wages and benefits through their labor union. The Department of Labor required both parties to submit computations of claims and position papers. While the employees submitted their materials, the petitioner failed to submit a position paper or comment on the employees' claims despite multiple opportunities. The Regional Director then ruled in favor of the employees. The petitioner argued he was denied due process. However, the court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to be heard but failed to submit materials or appear at hearings. Therefore, the petitioner's right to due process was not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 80685 (March 16, 1989)

    Uploaded by

    Jolynne Anne Gatica
    65 views1 page
    Petitioner, who owned a snack mobile business, was accused by his employees of underpaying wages and benefits through their labor union. The Department of Labor required both parties to submit computations of claims and position papers. While the employees submitted their materials, the petitioner failed to submit a position paper or comment on the employees' claims despite multiple opportunities. The Regional Director then ruled in favor of the employees. The petitioner argued he was denied due process. However, the court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to be heard but failed to submit materials or appear at hearings. Therefore, the petitioner's right to due process was not violated.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law II - Case Digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner, who owned a snack mobile business, was accused by his employees of underpaying wages and benefits through their labor union. The Department of Labor required both parties to submit computations of claims and position papers. While the employees submitted their materials, the petitioner failed to submit a position paper or comment on the employees' claims despite multiple opportunities. The Regional Director then ruled in favor of the employees. The petitioner argued he was denied due process. However, the court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to be heard but failed to submit materials or appear at hearings. Therefore, the petitioner's right to due process was not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    Marquez vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 80685 (March 16, 1989)

    Uploaded by

    Jolynne Anne Gatica
    Petitioner, who owned a snack mobile business, was accused by his employees of underpaying wages and benefits through their labor union. The Department of Labor required both parties to submit computations of claims and position papers. While the employees submitted their materials, the petitioner failed to submit a position paper or comment on the employees' claims despite multiple opportunities. The Regional Director then ruled in favor of the employees. The petitioner argued he was denied due process. However, the court found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to be heard but failed to submit materials or appear at hearings. Therefore, the petitioner's right to due process was not violated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DUE PROCESS: OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

    ALFREDO S. MARQUEZ, doing business under the name and style of LITTLE FOLKS SNACK
    MOBILE,vs. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO
    (KAMPIL-KATIPUNAN) AND IN BEHALF OF ITS 79 MEMBERS
    G.R. No. 80685, March 16, 1989
    CORTES, J.

    FACTS: The Kaisahan ng Mangagawang Pilipino (Private respondent) on behalf of its members who
    were employees of the Little Folks Snack Mobile (Petitioner) filed a complaint with the DOLE for
    underpayment of minimum wage, non-payment of ECOLA, non-payment of incentive leave benefits and
    non-payment of overtime pay. The employees were required to submit a computation of their claims
    while petitioner was required to comment upon receipt of the claim. Both parties were also required to
    submit their respective position papers, but it was only the respondent who were able to submit.
    Thereafter, one Minerva Peran (Peran) claiming to be the representative of the employees filed a motion
    to dismiss on the ground of a compromise agreement signed by her and the petitioner. The Regional
    Director denied the motion to dismiss which was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. Hence, this petition
    arguing, among others, that petitioner was denied due process. Petitioner further contends that it was
    deprived of its right to be heard when the Regional Director awarded the employees their claims and
    denying Peran’s motion to dismiss even in the absence of its position paper.

    ISSUE: Whether petitioner was deprived of its right to be heard.

    RULING: NO.

    There is denial of due process when a party is not accorded an opportunity to be heard in a case filed
    against him. However, what the law prohibits is the absolute lack of an opportunity to be heard. Hence, it
    has been ruled that there was no denial of due process where the employer was duly represented by
    counsel and given sufficient opportunity to be heard and present his evidence nor where the employer's
    failure to be heard was due to the various postponements granted to it or to his repeated failure to appear
    during the hearings.

    Petitioner, in this case, was given at least three chances by the hearing officer to submit his position paper
    but failed each time. Even prior to the hearing officer's order for the submission of the position paper,
    petitioner was given the opportunity to traverse the employees' complaint when he was ordered to
    comment on the employees' computation of their claims submitted on August 20, 1986. The comment
    was never submitted since petitioner failed to appear during the two hearings set for the purpose despite
    due notice. Clearly, petitioner was granted ample opportunity to present his case before the Regional
    Director.

    You might also like