complainants position paper and other supporting documents they submitted to support their claims x x x x On appeal, the NLRC in its Resolution of 15 January 1997iii[3] vacated and set aside the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings. The NLRC held that OMANFIL and HYUNDAI were denied due process, thus x x x x while the Labor Arbiter is given the discretion to determine if a hearing is necessary, the discretion must be exercised prudently. Where it appears that such power would result in grave injustice to any or both, by depriving him or them of the fundamental right to due process, we, in the exercise of the power of review, shall act to correct the error. In the case at bar, it is crystal clear that there remain several factual issues that still need to be ventilated, threshed, heard, tried and resolved which are within the competence, original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Certainly, further hearings and appropriate proceedings, which would allow the parties to present witnesses and other documentary evidences, in their respective behalf, or at least for the respondents-appellants to submit their position paper, would also allow the Labor Arbiter to fulfill his duty to ascertain the truth as to the factual issues involved x x x x In this petition for certiorari Habanaiv[4] imputes grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC in reversing the Labor Arbiter, arguing that: (a) determination of the necessity of hearing is discretionary on the Labor Arbiter; (b) the subsequent filing by petitioner of his bill of particulars had the effect of abandoning his motion to declare OMANFIL and HYUNDAI in default; and (c) OMANFIL and HYUNDAI received petitioners Bill of Particulars, hence, they cannot invoke denial of due process. The sole issue to be resolved is whether private respondents OMANFIL and HYUNDAI were denied due process when the Labor Arbiter decided the case solely on the basis of the position paper and supporting documents submitted in evidence by Habana and De Guzman. We rule in the affirmative. The manner in which this case was decided by the Labor Arbiter left much to be desired in terms of respect for the right of private respondents to due process First, there was only one conciliatory conference held in this case. This was on 10 May 1996. During the conference, the parties did not discuss at all the possibility of amicable settlement due to petitioners stubborn insistence that private respondents be declared in default. Second, the parties agreed to submit their respective motions - petitioners motion to declare respondents in default and private respondents motion for bill of particulars - for the consideration of the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbitration Associate, one Ms. Gloria Vivar, then informed the parties that they would be notified of the action of the Labor Arbiter on the pending motions. The Minutes of the conference show Rodrigo Habana, et al. vs. Omanfil Intl, et al. May 10, 1996 - 10:30 a.m.