Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City

_______ DIVISION

Xxxxxx,
Complainant-Appellant,
NLRC CASE NO. xxxxx

-versus-

XXXXX,
Respondent-Appellee,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(of the Order dated 26 November 2012)

Alcatraz Security and Investigation Agency and Mr. Ernesto Catungal,

collectively referred to herein as “Respondents”, by undersigned counsel, most

respectfully submit their Motion for Reconsideration for the above captioned case,

based on the following:

GROUND:

THE HONORABLE OFFICE COMMITTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED
THE ORDER DATED 26 NOVEMBER 2012
WITHOUT OBSERVING ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
PROCESS.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I.

THE HONORABLE OFFICE COMMITTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED
THE ORDER DATED 26 NOVEMBER 2012
WITHOUT OBSERVING ADMINISTRATIVE DUE
PROCESS.
 1. On 14 December 2012, Respondents, through counsel, received the

Order dated 26 November 2012 issued by this Honorable Office.

2. Pursuant to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor

Code,1 Respondents submit this Motion for Reconsideration to this Honorable

Office’s Order dated 26 November 2012 within the prescribed period to appeal which

is within ten (10) calendar days from receipt.

3. In the assailed Order, this Honorable Office ruled that failure on the part

of the Respondents to appear during the scheduled summary investigations

constrained the Honorable Office to adopt the affidavit executed by the complainant

Loleo D. Duba and the computations made by the Labor and Employment Officer.

Consequently, Alcatraz Security and Investigation Agency and Mr. Ernesto

Catungal, President and General Manager, are ordered to pay Mr. Loleo D. Duba

the amount of Sixty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Two Pesos and 16/100 Pesos

(Php 68,902.16) within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

4. It is specifically provided in the Implementing Rules and Regulations

that technicalities of law and procedure shall not strictly apply. However, the

proceeding is still subject to the requirements of due process.

5. It bears stressing that the issuance of a Compliance Order must observe

the “cardinal primary requirements” of due process in administrative proceedings, to

wit:

“(1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to

present one's case and submit evidence in support
thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented; (3) the decision must have something to
support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial,
and substantial evidence means such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected; (6) the tribunal or body of any of its judges
must act on its or his own independent consideration
of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the
board or body should in all controversial questions,

1
Book III: Rule X-A
 render its decisions in such manner that the parties
to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reason for the decision rendered."2

6. Herein Respondents argue that there exist meritorious grounds for not

appearing in the scheduled summary investigations.

6.1 On August 6, 2012, a notice of conference for August 13 and 27,

2012 at 10:30 am was issued. However, the petitioner received their notice

only on August 16, 2012 or three days AFTER the first scheduled

conference.

6.2 Furthermore, the second conference was scheduled on August 27,

2012, a regular holiday for the celebration of the National Heroes Day.

Immediately thereafter, the Petitioners informed the Honorable Office of the

Department of Labor and Employment that they were unable to appear during

the first two conferences because of the reasons abovementioned.

7. Finally, on August 30, 2012, a summons was issued ordering the

Petitioner to appear on September 10, 2012 at 10:00 am. Unfortunately, the

summons was received only at 4:00 pm of that very same day.

8. A careful study of the circumstances surrounding the issuance and

receipt by Respondents of the notices of hearing reveals that the Respondents could

not have participated in the proceedings simply because the notices were belatedly

received.

8.1. In short, this Honorable Office issued the Order despite the

Respondents were NOT accorded due process because there was no

adequate opportunity to present its case or oppose the complaint.

8.2. The essence of administrative due process is the opportunity to

be heard. There is an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard on the part

of the respondents because the two notices of conference were either

2
Doruelo vs. Commission on Elections, 133 SCRA 382 [1984]
 received beyond the scheduled date or time of hearing or set on a regular

holiday.

9. Moreover, there is NO evidence to show that the Respondents were

or are guilty of negligence for its failure to appear on the scheduled conferences.

10. As stated in the Order itself, the sole basis of the award is the affidavit

of the complainant and the computation made by the Labor and Employment

Officer.

10.1. As explained above, the Respondents were not able to avail of

the opportunity to refute the sole basis for the award for reasons

that were beyond their control. Accordingly, any such award

contravenes the principles of administrative due process.

11. In addition, the assailed Order did not contain substantial evidence

showing petitioner's responsibility for the payment of wages and other benefits.

Substantial evidence means "such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion."3 In this case, the Order is merely

founded on who has the burden of proof in paying monetary benefits and the

presumption that the Labor and Employment Officer performed her duties in a

regular manner.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein Respondents respectfully pray

that the Honorable Office REVERSE and SET ASIDE its Order dated 26 November

2012, and GRANT Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration, thereby continuing

the summary conference or proceedings of the instant case.

Other reliefs, just or equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.

San Juan City, Metro Manila, for Quezon City, 19 December 2012.

3
Implementing Rules of Book III: Rule X-A.
 ADARLO CAOILE & ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Petitioners
Unit 1702 Atlanta Centre
31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills 1502
San Juan, Metro Manila
Tel. Nos. (02)723-1241 * (02)723-3041
E-mail <jcaglaw@gmail.com>

By:
VICENTE O. CAOILE, JR.
Roll of Attorney No. 44136
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 02678
PTR No. 0411553; 1/04/2012; San Juan, M.M.
MCLE Compliance No. I – 16284; 01/20/09
MCLE Compliance No. II – 15809; 01/20/09
MCLE Compliance No. III – 0013310; 03/30/10

JERICHO B. DEL PUERTO

Roll of Attorney No. 61571
IBP No. 893307; 03/12/12; Eastern Samar
PTR No. 0454479; 04/20/12; San Juan, M.M.
MCLE Compliance not applicable
Admitted to the Bar on 28 March 2012

COPY FURNISHED:

HON. ALAN M. MACARAYA, CEO III

Regional Director
Department of Labor and Employment - by registered mail
DOLE-NCR Building, 967 Maligaya St., Malate, Manila

Greetings:

Please be advised that the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration will be

submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Office on
_____________________ at ______________________.

JERICHO B. DEL PUERTO

EXPLANATION
 Pursuant to the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, copies of the
foregoing pleading were served upon the parties and filed before the Honorable
Office by registered mail, instead of the preferred mode of personal service and filing,
due to distance, time constraints and the lack of messengerial manpower at the office
of the undersigned counsel.

JERICHO B. DEL PUERTO

88.20.01MotionforReconsideration