DAYAG vs HON. CENIZARES, JR.

(1998) FACTS: Petitioners were hired to work as tower crane operators by one Alfredo Young, a building contractor doing business in the name of Youngs construction. In 1991, they were transferred to Cebu City to work for Youngs hoemart Cebu Pro!ect. Petitioner "illiam #ayag asked $ermission to go to %anila to attend family matters and was allowed to do so but was not $aid for &anuary '()(* due to his accountability for the loss of certain construction tools. +he other $etitioners left due to harassment by Young. +hereafter, $etitioners banded together and filed a com$laint against Young before the ,C- Arbitration .ranch ,/-C which was assigned to /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares. Young filed a 1%otion to transfer the case2 to the -egional Arbitration .ranch, -egion 3II of the ,/-C. 4e contended that the case should be filed in Cebu City because there is where the work$lace of the $etitioners. Petitioners o$$osed the same, arguing that all of them are from %etro %anila and that they could not afford tri$s to Cebu. .esides, they claimed that res$ondents main office is in Corinthian 5arden in 6C. /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares 5-A,+7# Youngs 1motion to transfer the case in Cebu.2 Petitioners a$$ealed to ,/-C but it was dismissed. 4ence, they filed a %8- and this time the Commission 7+ A I#7 its $re9ious decision and rema !e! the case to the original arbitration branch of the ,C- for further $roceedings. Young filed his own %8- and the ,/-C reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to Cebu City.

Iss"e: Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained Youngs motion to transfer HE#D: NO +he C ruled that litigations should, as much as $ossible, be decided on the merits and not technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an o$$osition on the 1motion to transfer case2 which was considered by /abor Arbiter Ceni0ares. 4ence, there is no showing that they ha9e been unduly $re!udiced by the motions failure to gi9e notice and hearing. 4owe9er, Young cannot deri9e comfort from this $etition. +he C held that the :uestion of 9enue relates more to the con9enience of the $arties rather than u$on the substance and merits of the case. +his is to assure con9enience for the $laintiff and his witness and to $romote the ends of !ustice under the $rinci$le that $%&e S%a%e s&a'' a(()r! *r)%e+%,) %) 'a-)r.. +he reason for this is that the worker, being the economically)disad9antaged $arty, the nearest go9ernmental machinery to settle the dis$ute must be $laced at his immediate dis$osal, and the other $arty is not to be gi9en the choice of another com$etent agency sitting in another $lace as this will unduly burden the former In the instant case, the ruling s$ecifying the ,C- Arbitration .ranch as the 9enue of the $resent action cannot be considered o$$ressi9e to Young because his residence in Corinthian 5ardens also ser9es as his corres$ondent office. 4earing the case in %anila would clearly e;$edite the $roceedings and bring s$eedy resolution to the instant case. /HEREFORE, 0ETITION IS GRANTED.