Porfirio Auxilio vs NLRC

G.R. No. 82189

August 2, 1990
Facts:
Petitioner, employed by private respondent Baguio Country Club Corporation as a houseman
and later on a regular employee, was placed under preventive suspension due to his possible
involvement in the theft. In the polygraph report, it was declared that petitioner offered no satisfactory
explanation for the adverse result of the polygraph test conducted on him. Petitioner was asked to
appear for investigation by the management. However, no further examination was conducted by the
police or the employer because petitioner could not be found in his residence and the notices sent to
him were rejected by his wife. Thus, he was terminated for "loss of trust and confidence" and for
"giving false statement during official investigation."
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter alleging that he was
dismissed on mere suspicion that he stole the money and that he was denied an opportunity to defend
himself pursuant to the provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between private respondent
and the union of which petitioner was a member.
Issue: Whether or not the grievance procedure provided for in the CBA was strictly observed.
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner was afforded due process of law. There is convincing and sufficient evidence on
record to show that private respondent corporation fully complied with the notice and hearing
requirements of due process. Petitioner was notified and repeatedly invited for further investigation but
he "chose to ignore" the said notices by his "convenient absence" from his residence and the continued
refusal by his wife to receive the notices. Private respondent cannot be faulted as petitioner had ample
opportunity to be heard. Since he unjustifiably rejected the opportunity, petitioner cannot now complain
that he was denied due process of law.

Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Workers

G.R. No. 178296
January 12, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of union registration against respondent because the
latter failed to submit to the BLR its annual financial report for several years and the list of its members
since it filed its registration papers. Petition was denied, hence, the petitioner appealed to the BLR. The
BLC Director inhibited so the DOLE Secretary took cognizance of the appeal and she dismissed the
appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the DOLE Secretary is allowed to take cognizance of the appeal.
Ruling:
When the DOLE Secretary resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of the BLR
Director and performed a function that the latter could not himself perform. She did so pursuant to her
power of supervision and control over the BLR.
If a certain power or authority is vested by law upon the Department Secretary, then such power
or authority may be exercised directly by the President, who exercises supervision and control over the
departments. This principle was incorporated in the Administrative Code of 1987, which defines
supervision and control as including the authority to act directly whenever a specific function is
entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate.
Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that the DOLE Secretary, as the person
exercising the power of supervision and control over the BLR, has the authority to directly exercise the
quasi-judicial function entrusted by law to the BLR Director.

LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests

1. HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA vs. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS, G.R. No. 178296,
January 12, 2011
2. PORIFIRIO AUXILIO vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 82189,August 2, 1990

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo