The Hearing Officer may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case, including ocular inspection, where appropriate, and examination of informed persons. Minister of Labor and Employment Blas F. Ople and POEA Administrator Patricia A. Sto. Tomas signed on May 21, 1985 the POEA Rules and Regulations. xx[20] Section 4. Summary Judgment. If on the basis of the pleadings/evidence on record, the Hearing Officer finds that there is sufficient ground to render judgment, he shall consider the case submitted for decision. (Now Section 3, Rule III, Book VII, POEA Rules and Regulations of 1991.) xxi[21] Section 5. Judgment Based on Position Paper. Whenever summary judgment is not appropriate, the Hearing Officer shall direct the parties to the case to simultaneously submit their position papers and/or memoranda within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice after which the case shall be deemed submitted for decision. (Now Sections 4, Rule III, Book VII, POEA Rules and Regulations of 1991.) xxii[22] Section 6. Investigation Procedure. Where the Hearing Officer finds that there are complicated factual issues involved which cannot be resolved through position papers and/or memoranda, he shall conduct investigation by requiring the parties to submit affidavits. He may, if necessary, direct the parties to appear before him to answer clarificatory questions. For this purpose, he may allow the parties to submit suggested written clarificatory questions which he may propound to the parties concerned. (Now Section 5, Rule III, Book VIII, POEA Rules and Regulations of 1991.) xxiii[23] Records, pp. 142-142. xxiv[24] Shoppers Gain Supermart vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 411, 422, July 26, 1996; AHS/Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319, 331, June 14, 1996; JGB and Associates, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 457, 462-463, March 7, 1996; and Valiant Machinery and Metal Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 369, 377, January 25, 1996. xxv[25] AHS/Philippines, Inc. vs. C.A., Ibid., p. 329; Pizza Hut/Progressive Development Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 531, 535, January 29, 1996. xxvi[26] AHS/Philippines vs. C.A., Id., p. 329; and Lim vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 259 SCRA 485, 496, July 26, 1996. xxvii[27] xxviii[28] Rollo, pp. 164-168. Reyes & Lim Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 201 SCRA 772, 776-778, September 25, 1991, per Medialdea, J. xxix[29] xxx[30] Hellenic Philippine Shipping, Inc. vs. Siete, 195 SCRA 179, 183-184, March 13, 1991, per Cruz, J. Falguera vs. Linsangan, 251 SCRA 364, 373, December 14, 1995; Saballa vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 260 SCRA 697,706, August 22, 1996; Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (PT&T) vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 251 SCRA 21, 28, December 7, 1995; xxxi[31]