EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 254976, August 20, 2024 ]
MARCELINO DELA CRUZ LINGGANAY, PETITIONER, VS. DEL MONTE LAND TRANSPORT BUS COMPANY, INC. AND NARCISO MORALES, RESPONDENTS.
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA,J.:
I concur.
As the ponencia1 specifically observed, prior to the filing of the Position Paper, Marcelino Dela Cruz Lingganay (Lingganay) had at least four opportunities to comprehensively inform herein respondents of his claims, including the claims for "separation pay, holiday premium, rest day pay, and underpaid wages," namely:
(1) In his original Complaint for illegal dismissal;
(2) In his Amended Complaint dated July 13, 2017, which additionally included claims for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees;
(3) By filing a second amended complaint before the filing of his Position Paper, pursuant to Rule V, Section 11 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure (2011 Rules), which does not expressly limit the number of amendments that may be made; and
(4) By bringing up his belated claims during the Mandatory Conciliation and Mediation Conference.(awÞhi(2
To be sure, had Lingganay brought up his belated claims during the aforementioned occasions, the amendment of his complaint would have been clearly justified under the Rules. However, instead of following the 2011 Rules and availing of these numerous opportunities, Lingganay only filed the Amended Complaint when he filed his Position Paper with Urgent Motion to Amend. Apparently, Lingganay's only rationale for doing so is as follows:
To justify his non-observance of the 2011 NLRC Rules, as amended, Lingganay's only argument before the Court is that his incorporation of his motion to further amend and his second amended complaint in his position paper was sanctioned by the Court's ruling in the case of Our Haus, which pronounced that a claim that is not raised in the pro forma complaint before the LA may still be raised in the position paper.3
There was no explanation of other circumstances that justified Lingganay and his counsel's disregard of the 2011 Rules. In other words, Lingganay and his counsel simply did not bother to check the correct procedure.
This brings to the fore the important nuance that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) was given the power "to promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches, as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the Labor] Code."4 Pursuant to this power, the NLRC introduced changes to its own procedure in order to curb abuse and to promote the speedy disposition of its cases. As explained in the ponencia:
These objectives having been specifically added in the 2005 and the 2011 NLRC Rules, as amended, the Commission indubitably intended that all matters regarding the inclusion of causes of action and the amendment of a complaint be first threshed out during the mandatory conference/conciliation before the parties are directed to simultaneously file their position papers. The intention behind this, just like any notice requirement, is to fully apprise the other party of the nature of all the causes of action in the complaint, to enable him/her to set forth intelligent and comprehensive arguments in the position paper, and to avoid surprises that may lead to injustice. They are also designed to avoid the resetting of cases just to give the other party the time to counter the new allegations and search for new evidence or witnesses to address a belatedly raised cause of action in the position paper.5 (Emphasis supplied)
As mentioned, Lingganay failed to offer any sufficient reason or any special circumstances to justify why the Court should disregard, overrule, or undermine the procedural changes introduced by the NLRC, in the valid exercise of its powers, precisely to aid the expeditious disposition of labor cases. Without any such compelling reason, it would be erroneous for the Court to accommodate Lingganay by undermining the ruling of the Labor Arbiter who is empowered under the rules to exercise discretion relative to allowing amendments of the complaint after the filing of the position paper. Indeed, in amending its procedural rules, the NLRC saw fit to give this discretion to the Labor Arbiter because the latter is in a better position to observe "on the ground" the prevailing circumstances relative to the dispute and to make a judgment call on the parties' requests that may needlessly delay the disposition of the case.
In view of the foregoing, I VOTE to DENY the Petition.
Footnotes
1 Ponencia, pp. 13-14.
2 Letter dated April 15, 2024, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.
3 Ponencia, p. 14.
4 LABOR CODE, as amended and renumbered in 2015, art. 225 (218), Powers of the Commission.
5 Ponencia, p. 13.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
