1

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region-North Sector
Quezon City

JIMMY Q. VALLEGA,
Complainant,
-versus-

NLRC Case No. 00-04-02926-06

GIFT AND PARCEL, INC. and/or

FOO SIEK JEW,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION

(to the Motion for Inhibition filed by Respondents)

COMPLAINANT, by himself, by way of Comment/Opposition to
the Motion for Inhibition filed by Respondents most respectfully alleges
that:
(a)

On May 31, 2006, after conducting a conference and failing

to

come

up

with

settlement,

the

complainant

and

respondents were directed by the Honorable Presiding Arbiter

of this Honorable Office to file their respective position papers
on June 14, 2006 at 10 oclock in the morning.

Attached

hereto is a copy of minutes for the hearing held on May 31,

2006 marked as Annex A;
(b)

On June 14, 2006, instead of filing a position paper,

respondents filed the instant motion on the ground that the
Honorable Presiding Arbiter has exhibited partiality in the
conferences held between the parties;

(c)

The filing of Motion for Inhibition was a clear dilatory tactic

because if indeed, the respondents felt that there was
partiality, they should have manifested it before they were

2
directed to file their position papers on May 31, 2006 or the
Motion for Inhibition should have been filed earlier than June
14, 2006 and not on the day when parties are supposed to
file their position paper;
(d)

Moreover, the narration of respondents in its Motion for

Inhibition does not in any way show that the Honorable
Presiding Arbiter exhibited partiality or bias because labor
cases are decided not on the basis of conferences or remarks
made by parties but based on the position papers and
pertinent

pleadings

filed

by

the

complainant

and

the

respondents;
(e)

It is evident that respondents are not prepared with their

position paper on the date designated by the Honorable
Presiding Arbiter because if they were prepared then they
should have filed it together with the Motion for Inhibition if
they are indeed after the proper and speedy disposition of
this labor case;

(f)

Furthermore, there are information learned by complainant

that respondents are selling some of their properties and in a
financial difficulty at present hence there is a necessity that
this labor case be immediately heard and decided by
Honorable Labor Arbiter Arden S. Anni;

(g)

Although Labor laws mandate the speedy disposition of

cases without giving much consideration to technicalities, it
should never sacrifice the fundamental requisites of due
process

(Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.

G.R. No,

154448, August 15, 2003 citing Caudenetaan Piece

Workers Union vs. Undersecretary 286 SCRA 401).
Hence, respondents should not be given leeway in submitting
their position paper to the detriment of the complainant and
considering the fact that respondents has more resources
compared to the complainant to file its position paper. To

3
allow respondents would be in contrast to the protection given
to the labor force. As emphatically held by the highest court
of the land:
In carrying out and interpreting
the Labor Codes provisions and its
implementing
regulations,
the
employees welfare should be the
primordial and paramount consideration.
This kind of interpretation gives meaning
and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as
provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code
which states that [a]ll doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of [the Labor] Code including
its implementing rules and regulations,
shall be resolved in favor of labor, and
Article 1702 of the Civil Code which
provides that [I]n case of doubt, all
labor legislation and all labor contracts
shall be construed in favor of the safety
and decent living for the laborer.
(Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.
G.R. No, 154448, August 15, 2003)

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Office that the Motion for Inhibition filed by respondents
be disregarded and parties be directed to immediately file their
respective position papers.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Manila for Quezon City
June 28, 2006.
JIMMY Q. VALLEGA
Complainant
Copy furnished:
ATTY. RAUL ZOSIMO B. PANLASIGUI
Counsel for the respondents
4th Floor Triumph Building
1610 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City