Respondent was an employee of the company which was later taken over by the petitioner. The petitioner then replaced the respondent. As a result, the respondent wrote to the petitioner asking for separation pay. Petitioner did not yield to the request of the respondent, respondent filed a complaint to the Labor Arbiter (LA), the LA dismissed the complaint. Respondent appealed to the NLRC. NLRC granted the appeal and reverse the decision of the LA. Petitioner went to the SC to appeal the decision of the NLRC alleging the issues below.
Whether the NLRC erred in not applying the Rules of Court when 1) It did not give the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine the herein the private respondent, 2) It did not strike down the unverified position paper of the respondent, 3) granted the appeal of the respondent after the decision of the Labor Arbiter became final when the respondent failed to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period.
No, it is a well-settled is the rule that procedural technicalities do not strictly apply to proceedings before labor arbiters for they may avail themselves of all reasonable means to speedily ascertain the facts of a controversy.
One thought on “Imperial Textile v. NLRC – GR 101527, 19 January 1993”