Labor Relations Commission, we also held that the submission of additional evidence on appeal before the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure; after all, rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases.66[66] Indeed, technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to grant the petition proceeds from an examination of its sufficiency as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in position papers and other documents.67[67]   And neither can OSCI rely on lack of due process. The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably he held.68[68] Considering that OSCI indeed contested the late submission of Bastol by filing its most vehement objection thereto on November 27, 2001, it cannot complain of not being accorded the opportunity to be heard and much less can it demand for the setting of an actual hearing. What OSCI could have and ought to have done was to present its own counter-affidavits. But it did not.   Documentary evidence submitted substantially proves Bastol’s claim for disability indemnity   66[66] G.R. No. 176240, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 670, 686. 67[67] Id. at 688. 68[68] Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Sallao, G.R. No. 166211, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 251, 259; citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 157028, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 311, 321-322.