whimsically and capriciously to its grave prejudice by admitting and using the late submission of Bastol as basis for his decision, and the CA, in turn, gravely erred in sanctioning the Labor Arbiter by granting Bastol’s petition for certiorari.   We cannot agree.   The nature of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter is not only nonlitigious and summary, but the Labor Arbiter is also given great leeway to resolve the case; thus, he may “avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the controversy.”64[64] The belated submission of additional documentary evidence by Bastol after the case was already submitted for decision did not make the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter improper. The basic reason is that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.       In Dacut v. Court of Appeals, we held that the fact that the Labor Arbiter admitted the company’s reply after the case had been submitted for decision did not make the proceedings before him irregular.65[65] In Sasan, Sr. v. National 64[64] Sec. 9, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, issued on December 10, 1999. 65[65] Dacut v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169434, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 260, 267.