Anderson vs NLRC : 111212 : January 22, 1996 : J Mendoza : Second... 4 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/111212.htm [10] Labor, the audit report of a certified public accountant clearly showed that the company suffered serious business losses. In the third case cited, Bristol Laboratories Employees Ass n v. [11] NLRC, the additional evidence also clearly showed that the employee was guilty of withdrawing pharmaceutical products from outlets for which he issued bouncing checks. But in the case at bar, not only was the delay in the submission of Kamal Al Bitars affidavit not explained but the affidavit belatedly submitted does not show that petitioners dismissal was indeed for a just cause. To repeat, the only reason the NLRC had for reversing the decision of the POEA is the fact that petitioner failed to answer the affidavit. But there was a reason for petitioners failure to do so. It was because a copy of the affidavit was served on him instead of his counsel. Unaided by counsel, he was unable to refute the allegations in the affidavit. The service of the affidavit was contrary to the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which require that if a party is represented by counsel or an authorized representative, service must be made on his counsel or representative. Thus, Rule III, 3 of the Rules of Procedure provides: Sec. 3. Filing of Pleadings. - All pleadings in connection with the case shall be filed with the appropriate docketing unit of the Regional Arbitration Branch, or the Commission as the case may be. The party filing the pleading shall serve the opposing party or parties with a copy thereof in the manner provided by this Rules with proof of service thereof. (Emphasis added) On the other hand, Rule II, 4, to which reference is made, provides: Sec. 4. Services of Notices and Resolutions. (a) notices or summons and copies of orders, resolutions or decisions shall be served on the parties to the case personally by the bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from receipt thereof or by registered mail; Provided that where a party is represented by counsel or authorized representative, service shall be made on such counsel or authorized representative; . . . (Emphasis added) Private respondents justify the service on petitioner directly on the ground that this had been done before in the POEA without protest from petitioner or counsel. This alone cannot justify noncompliance by private respondents with the rules. Petitioner cannot be held in estoppel. An element of estoppel is that as a result of a partys representation or omission the other party is misled, in which case it would be inequitable to allow the first party to deny his representation or omission. Here, however, there is nothing to show that private respondents had ever been misled into believing that they could serve the pleadings on petitioner, instead of through his counsel. Private respondents knew that petitioner was represented by counsel. For this reason they should not be allowed to profit from their own disregard of the rule on service of pleadings to the damage and prejudice of petitioner. Petitioner complains that he was dismissed without being informed of: the cause of his dismissal and without being given prior notice as required by the Contract of Employment which provided: Sec. E. The Employer may terminate the contract on other grounds by giving a prior 30 days written notice or in lieu thereof, termination pay equivalent to salary for thirty days for every year of service. On the other hand, private respondents reply that while no prior notice was given to petitioner the latter was given separation pay equivalent to one months pay which He accepted. Private respondents contention is well taken. The employment contract clearly states that in lieu of prior notice the employee may be given termination pay equal to thirty days pay for every year of service. This is in addition to the payment to him of his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract. 1/20/2016 7:54 PM