Venue; Worker’s Option: Waiver

DAYAG, et al v CANIZARES, NLRC, G.R. NO. 124193, March 6, 1998

FACTS:
Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young on the latter’s construction
site in San Juan, M.M. In 1991, they were transferred to Cebu. Petitioner Dayag asked permission to go
to Manila to attend family matters and was allowed but was not paid during his absence due to his
accountability for the loss of certain tools. The other petitioners left due to harassment. Thereafter,
petitioner banded together and filed a complaint against Young before the NCR Arbitration Branch.
Instead of attending the initial hearings, Young filed a “Motion to transfer the case” to the Regional
Arbitration Branch (RAB), Region VII contending that the case should be filed in Cebu City because it is
the location of the workplace of the petitioners. LA granted Young’s motion. Petitioner’s appealed to the
NLRC but it was dismissed. Hence, petitioners filed a MR. The Commission granted their motion and
remanded the case back to the arbitration branch of the NCR. Young filed his own MR and the NLRC
reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to RAB, Br. VII. Hence this recourse.

ISSUE:
Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained Young’s motion to
transfer the case.

HELD:
No. Rule IV, Section 1 (d) of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides:

The venue of an action may be changed or transferred to a different Regional Arbitration Branch
other than where the complaint was filed by written agreement of the parties or when the Commission
or Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending so orders, upon motion by the proper party in
meritorious cases.

Young’s acts are in consonance with this provision, for he seasonable made representation to the transfer
of venue of the action in the proper motion. The SC however held that Young cannot derive comfort from
the petition. The SC ruled that the question of venue relates more to the convenience of the parties rather
than upon the substance and merits of the case for the said section used the word “may”, allowing a
different venue when the interest of substantial justice demand a different one.

In any case, under the principle that the state shall afford protection to labor, the worker, being the
economically-disadvantaged party, the nearest governmental machinery to settle the dispute must be
placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is not to be given the choice of another competent
agency sitting in another place as this will unduly burden the former. Considering the expense a person
residing outside Cebu would incur to prosecute the claim in Cebu, he would probably decide not to file the
action at all. The condition will thus defeat instead of enhance the ends of justice. The transfer of the case
in NCR cannot be considered oppressive to Young. His residence in Q.C. also serves as his
correspondent office. Certainly, the transfer will not cause him as much inconvenience at it would to the
petitioners. WHEREFORE, petition is granted.