12. Singson vs.

NLRC

TITLE MIGUEL SINGSON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC. (PAL), respondents.

GR NUMBER 122389

DATE June 19, 1997

PONENTE PUNO

NATURE/ SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

KEYWORDS
FACTS The petitioner was employed by private respondent Philippine
Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter PAL) as Traffic Representative
Passenger, Handling Division. In 1991, petitioner was assigned
to serve the check-in counter of Japan Air Lines (hereinafter
JAL) for Flight 742. Among the passengers checked in by him
was Ms. Lolita Kondo who was bound for Narita, Japan. After
checking in, Ms. Kondo lodged a complaint alleging that
petitioner required her to pay US $200.00 for alleged excess
baggage without issuing any receipt. A confrontation took
place where petitioner was asked by the security officer to
empty his pockets. The dollars paid by Ms. Kondo were not
found in his possession. However, when the lower panel of the
check-in counter he was manning was searched, the sum of
two hundred sixty five dollars (US $265) was found therein
consisting of two (2) one hundred dollar bills, one (1) fifty
dollar bill, one (1) ten dollar bill and one (1) five dollar bill.
Petitioner was administratively charged and investigated by a
committee formed by private respondent PAL.

The investigating committee then found Singson guilty. PAL

then dismissed Singson from employment.Singson then filed a
case before NLRC against PAL for illegal dismissal. Labor
Arbiter Raul Aquino ruled in favor of Singson as he found PAL’s
side insufficient to dismiss Singson. PAL appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and his case was
raffled to the 2nd Division thereof. The 2nd Division, however,
was composed of Commissioners Victoriano Calaycay, Rogelio
Rayala, and former Labor Arbiter Raul Aquino. same arbiter
which decided Singson’s case. The commissioners deliberated
on the case and thereafter reversed the decision of Aquino.
Singson moved for reconsideration. This time, only
Commissioners Calaycay and Rayalade liberated on the
motion. The motion was denied.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not Singson was denied of due process.

RULING(S) Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson was denied due
process. The SC held that Singson was denied due process
when Aquino participated, as presiding commissioner of the
2nd Division of the NLRC, in reviewing PAL’s appeal. He was
reviewing his own decision as a former labor arbiter.

Under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the New Rules of Procedure of

the NLRC, each Division shall consist of one member from the
public sector who shall act as the Presiding Commissioner and
one member each from the workers and employers sectors,
respectively. The composition of the Division guarantees equal
representation and impartiality among its members. Thus,
litigants are entitled to a review of three (3) commissioners
who are impartial right from the start of the process of review.
Commissioner Aquino can hardly be considered impartial since
he was the arbiter who decided the case under review. He
should have inhibited himself from any participation in this
case.

Prescinding from this premise, the May 19, 1995 resolution of

the respondent NLRC is void for the Division that handed it
down was not composed of three impartial commissioners.
The infirmity of the resolution was not cured by the fact that
the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by
two commissioners and without the participation of
Commissioner Aquino. The right of petitioner to an impartial
review of his appeal starts from the time he filed his appeal.
He is not only entitled to an impartial tribunal in the resolution
of his motion for reconsideration. Moreover, his right is to
an impartial review of three commissioners. The denial of
petitioner's right to an impartial review of his appeal is not an
innocuous error. It negated his right to due process.