Finally, complaints of this character on the part of management could have been avoided had the labor official concerned been more sensitive to the need to observe procedural regularity. Had he thus been, as he should be, the beneficiary is not only the employer who, as he ought to, should be allowed the fullest opportunity to resist unwarranted claims, but also the employee or laborer involved as there would be no undue delay in the event the verdict would favor him. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The 15 January 1997 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission vacating and setting aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and ordering the remand of the case to the Labor Arbitration Branch of origin for further hearings on the factual issues involved, to be resolved with dispatch consistent with due process, is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur. i[1] Records, p. 4. ii[2] Labor Arbiter Eduardo J. Carpio. iii[3] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Raul T. Aquino, concurred in by Commissioners Victoriano R. Calaycay and Rogelio I. Rayala. iv[4] Complainant Adjuthor P. de Guzman did not join Habana in this petition for certiorari. v[5] Minutes of 10 May 1996 Conference; Rollo, p. 71; Annex 1. vi[6] Shoemart, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 90795-96, 13 August 1993, 225 SCRA 311. vii[7] See Gelmart Industries Phils., Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., G.R. No. 70544, 5 November 1987, 155 SCRA 403. viii[8] See Magsalang v. Ople, No. L-38813, 29 April 1975, 63 SCRA 508. ix[9] Rollo, pp. 8-9. x[10] See De Guzman v. Elbinias, G.R. No. 57395, 17 April 1989, 172 SCRA 240. xi[11] Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656