G.R. No. 124193 March 6, 1998
WILLIAM DAYAG, EDUARDO CORTON, EDGARDO CORTON, LEOPOLDO NAGMA, ALOY FLORES, ROMEO PUNAY and EDWIN DAYAG, petitioners, vs. HON. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES, JR., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and YOUNG’S CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners William Dayag, Edwin Dayag, Eduardo Corton, Edgardo Corton, Leopoldo Nagma, Aloy Flores, and Romeo Punay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against Alfredo Young, doing business as Young’s Construction, before the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch. They alleged they were hired in 1990 as tower crane operators in San Juan, Metro Manila, and were transferred in November 1991 to work at a construction project in Cebu City. They worked in Cebu until February 1993, except for Punay (until September 1992) and Nagma (until October 1992). In early 1993, petitioners individually left Cebu for Manila, citing harassment and unpaid wages, and thereafter filed the complaint.
Respondent Young filed a motion to transfer the case to the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in Region VII (Cebu City), arguing the workplace was in Cebu City as per Section 1(a), Rule IV of the NLRC Rules. He submitted evidence including a business registration and permit from Cebu City. Petitioners opposed, claiming they were Metro Manila residents and that respondent had a main office in Quezon City. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion to transfer. The NLRC initially dismissed petitioners’ appeal but later, upon reconsideration, annulled the transfer order and remanded the case to NCR. Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself again and reinstated the order transferring the case to Cebu. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the transfer of the case from the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch to the Regional Arbitration Branch in Region VII (Cebu City) on grounds of improper venue.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and set aside the NLRC’s order transferring the case to Cebu. The Court held that the provision on venue in the NLRC Rules (Section 1(a), Rule IV) is permissive, not mandatory. The Court cited Sulpicio Lines, Inc. v. NLRC, emphasizing that venue rules are intended for the convenience of the parties and to promote the ends of justice, and must be interpreted in light of the constitutional policy to afford full protection to labor. The Court found that hearing the case in Manila, where petitioners resided and where they could more easily pursue their complaint without the financial burden of traveling to Cebu, would expedite proceedings and serve substantial justice. The NLRC’s resolution remanding the case to the Arbitration Branch of Origin in NCR was reinstated and affirmed.
The Court also addressed petitioners’ procedural arguments: (1) that the motion to transfer was defective for lack of notice of hearing, ruling that technical rules may be relaxed in labor cases to serve substantial justice, especially as petitioners were able to file an opposition; and (2) that respondent waived his right to question venue by filing a position paper, ruling that no waiver occurs when venue is questioned simultaneously with the filing of a position paper as per the NLRC Rules.