Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

CASE DIGEST: THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA, acting through its

owner, GRAND PLAZA HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.


NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL, RESTAURANT
AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES-HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA
SUPERVISORS CHAPTER (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC), Respondent.

FACTS: Respondents filed a petition for certification of pre-election with the


DOLE. The Med-Arbiter approved the pre-election. However, the certification
election was delayed, but pushed through nonetheless. Petitioner filed for
cancellation of the certification due to the failure of respondent to submit its
financial statements to the Bureau of Labor Relations. The Med-Arbiter still ruled
in favor of respondents. Petitioner appealed the decision to the regional director
of the DOLE. The Regional director still rendered a decision in favor of
respondents, which prompted petitioners to appeal the decision to the director of
the Bureau of Labor Relations. The director of the BLR inhibited from the issue,
as he was previously the counsel of respondents. The Secretary of Labor resolved
the issue in the stead of the BLR director. She ruled in favor of respondents. The
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, but was turned
down. Petitioner then filed for certiorari, challenging the jurisdiction of the
DOLE Secretary. An appeal from the decision of the Regional Director is
supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the BLR. Also, petitioner claims to have
been deprived of due process as it was not informed of the inhibition of the BLR
director.

ISSUES: [1] Is the ruling of the secretary of labor valid? [2] Was
petitioner deprived of due process?

HELD: It is without question that the appeal from the decision of the regional
office is within the jurisdiction of the BLR. Given the circumstances, the BLR
director inhibited himself. Petitioner insists that the case should have gone to the
subordinates of the BLR director. However, this happens in cases where the
director is incapacitated. This does not obtain as the director merely inhibited
himself. On the other hand, the Secretary of DOLE has powers of supervision and
control over the BLR. As such, it may validly step into the shoes of the BLR
director and resolve the issue.

The concept of due-process is different in proceedings before the courts, and


before administrative agencies. For the latter, the essence is the opportunity to be
heard. In this case, the petitioner was able to file a motion for reconsideration on
the decision of the DOLE Secretary, albeit was denied. Petitioner was given due-
process, and its contention that it was unaware of the inhibition of the BLR
director is of no moment.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen