information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence, if any from any party or witness. (Emphasis supplied.)     The foregoing provisos manifestly show the non-litigious and the summary nature of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, who is given full discretion whether to conduct a hearing or not and to decide the case before him through position papers. In Iriga Telephone Co, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,57[57] the Court discussed the reason why it is discretionary on the part of the Labor Arbiter, who, motu proprio, determines whether to hold a hearing or not. Consequently, a hearing cannot be demanded by either party as a matter of right. The parties are required to file their corresponding position papers and all the documentary evidence and affidavits to prove their cause of action and defenses. The rationale behind this is to avoid delay and curtail the pernicious practice of withholding of evidence. In Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Santos,58[58] the Court reiterated the Labor Arbiter’s discretion not to conduct formal or clarificatory hearings which is not violative of due process, thus:   The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the Labor Arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.59[59] 57[57] G.R. No. 119420, February 27, 1998, 286 SCRA 600. 58[58] G.R. No. 165968, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 245. 59[59] Id. at 252-253; citing Shoppes Manila, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147125, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 354, 361.