We fully agree with Bastol’s arguments that the NLRC, while having appellate jurisdiction over decisions and resolutions of the Labor Arbiter, may not dictate to the latter how to conduct the labor case before him. Sec. 9 of Rule V of the then prevailing NLRC Rules of Procedure, issued on December 10, 1999, provided for the nature of proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, thus:   Section 9. Nature of Proceedings. — The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law shall not strictly apply thereto. The Labor Arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the controversy speedily, including ocular inspection and examination of well-informed persons. (Emphasis supplied.)     And the Labor Arbiter is given full discretion to determine, motu proprio, on whether to conduct hearings or not. Secs. 3 and 4 of Rule V of the then prevailing NLRC Rules of Procedure also pertinently provided:   Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum. — x x x   These verified position papers shall cover those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct testimony. x x x   Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing. — Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there is a need for a formal trial or hearing. At this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or