G.R. No. 172624 December 5, 2011

G.R. No.
172624
December 5, 2011
PABLO POLSOTIN, JR., ARWIN RAYALA, GERONIMO LIMPANTE, RAUL DOMDOM,

AND OSCAR ANDRIN,Petitioners,
vs.
DE GUIA ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
A worker cannot be deprived of his job, a property right, without satisfying the requirements
of due process. As enshrined in our bill of rights, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.1
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assails the January 26, 2006 Decision3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89644, which denied due course and dismissed the
Petition for Certiorari filed therewith by petitioners Pablo Polsotin, Jr. (Polsotin), Arwin
Rayala (Rayala), Geronimo Limpante (Limpante), Raul Domdom (Domdom) and Oscar
Andrin (Andrin) and consequently, affirmed the National Labor Relations Commissions
(NLRC) dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance with procedural rules. Also assailed is
the May 3, 2006 Resolution4 of the CA wherein said court likewise refused to give due
course to petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and instead affirmed and reiterated its
assailed Decision.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioners Polsotin, Rayala, Limpante, Domdom and Andrin (petitioners) were bus drivers
and conductors of respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc. (respondent). Alleging that they
were dismissed without cause and due process, petitioners filed on July 17, 2001 a
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of backwages and damages against respondent
before the NLRC.
During the hearings set before the Labor Arbiter, respondent failed to appear despite due
notice.5 It likewise failed to timely submit its position paper. Thus, on the last hearing held on
January 14, 2002, the case was submitted for decision. 6
On February 8, 2002, respondent filed its position paper without furnishing petitioners a
copy of the same.7
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On December 27, 2002, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision 8 dismissing petitioners
complaint for lack of merit. It held that petitioners were validly terminated from employment
for violation of company rules and regulations as well as for gross and habitual neglect of
duties as supported by petitioners employment records submitted by respondent. The
Labor Arbiter added that the
procedural requirements for dismissing petitioners were likewise satisfied.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Without the assistance of counsel, petitioners, through Rayala as their representative, filed
a Memorandum of Appeal9 with the NLRC. They contended that the Labor Arbiter committed
grave abuse of discretion in rendering a decision anchored mainly on respondents
evidence. It was their assertion that by failing to appear at the scheduled hearings and to
file a position paper on time without any justifiable reason, respondent should have been
deemed to have waived its right to submit its own evidence. Thus, they prayed that
respondents belatedly filed position paper be considered a mere scrap of paper. They also
pointed out that said position paper interposed arguments only as against petitioners
Polsotin and Rayala and thus cannot be used against the other petitioners.
In a Resolution10 dated January 30, 2004, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure of
petitioners to append thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon
the other party. The NLRC then affirmed the Decision appealed from.
From this resolution, petitioners moved for reconsideration by explaining that their lapses
were due to their ignorance of the existence of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.
Nevertheless, they clarified that they managed to duly furnish the respondent a copy of their
Memorandum of Appeal and that the registry receipt showing proof of service was attached
to the original copy of the said pleading when it was filed with the docket section of the
NLRC. Moreover, at the bottom of said motion for reconsideration is a certification that there
is no pending case involving the same cause of action in any court and that petitioners did
not commit forum-shopping.11
The motion for reconsideration was however denied by the NLRC in an Order 12 dated
February 18, 2005.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari13 imploring the CA to be more liberal in the
application of the rules of procedure considering that their dismissal from service was
effected without due process as they were not given ample opportunity to be heard and to
refute respondents allegations against them. They prayed that their appeal be given due
course.
On January 26, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision14 denying due course and dismissing the
petition for the following reasons: first, the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping attached to the petition was not signed by all of the petitioners; and, second, there
was no showing of grave abuse of discretion since the NLRC merely complied with the
procedural rules governing appeals before it. Therefore, it could not be faulted in denying
petitioners appeal.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 15 which was, however, denied by the CA in its
Resolution16 dated May 3, 2006.
1awphi1
Hence, petitioners, again without the benefit of counsel, brought this case before this Court
to once more seek leniency in the application of the rules. It was only on September 8, 2010
or after the parties have submitted their respective Memoranda that the Public Attorneys
Office entered its appearance on behalf on the petitioners. 17 On January 31, 2011, we
resolved to note said entry of appearance.18
Issue
WHETHER X X X IN SPITE OF TECHNICALITIES, PETITIONERS ARE STILL ENTITLED
TO X X X DUE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PETITION X X X.19
Our Ruling
We find merit in the petition.
Strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve the broader interest of
substantial justice.
Petitioners appeal before the NLRC was dismissed purely on technical grounds as it did not
contain the required certification of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon the
respondent. Immediately, petitioners rectified these lapses by filing their motion for
reconsideration indicating therein that there was no intention on their part to commit forum
shopping and that the registry receipt showing proof of service upon respondent was
attached to their Memorandum of Appeal filed with the NLRC. With respect to their petition
for certiorari with the CA, petitioners failed to affix their individual signatures on top of their
typewritten names in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the
petition. On this basis and on the conclusion that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing petitioners appeal on technical grounds, the CA denied due course
to the petition and dismissed the same.
Note, however, that in both instances, petitioners were not represented by a lawyer. They
had no counsel on record and had been filing and signing all pleadings only through their
representative, petitioner Rayala. There was no showing that their case was directly
handled or at the very least, that they were assisted by a counsel. Not being lawyers,
petitioners lack of thorough understanding of procedural rules as well as the importance of
its strict observance is understandable. As held in a case, 20 a non-lawyer litigant cannot be
expected to be well-versed on the rules of procedure as even the most experienced lawyers
get tangled in the web of procedure.
Aware that petitioners are not represented by counsel, the CA could have been more
prudent by giving petitioners time to engage the services of a lawyer or at least by
reminding them of the importance of retaining one. It is worthy to mention at this point that
the right to counsel, being intertwined with the right to due process, is guaranteed by the
Constitution to any person whether the proceeding is administrative, civil or criminal. 21 The
CA should have extended some degree of liberality so as to give the party a chance to
prove their cause with a lawyer to represent or to assist them.
In line with this and as "the right of counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all
times",22 we required petitioners to enter the appearance of a counsel. 23 Upon petitioners
manifestation of their failure to secure the services of a counsel due to financial constraints,
the Court resolved to appoint a counsel de oficio to assist them in litigating their case.24
It bears stressing that "the dismissal of an employees appeal on purely technical ground is
inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor." 25 The Court has often
set aside the strict application of procedural technicalities to serve the broader interest of
substantial justice.26
Petitioners were denied the right to due process.
A careful consideration of the facts of the case convinces us that petitioners appeal should
have been given due course. It may be recalled that respondent failed to timely submit its
position paper when required by the Labor Arbiter, hence, the case was submitted for
decision sans the same. Nonetheless, when respondent filed its position paper, the Labor
Arbiter admitted the same and relied on it in coming up with a decision that petitioners were
validly terminated. More important is that petitioners were not even furnished a copy of
respondents position paper in order for them to refute the contents and allegations therein.
And since neither did respondent appear in any of the hearings conducted before the Labor
Arbiter, petitioners were never really afforded an opportunity to rebut respondents
allegations and charges against them or to introduce evidence to refute them. Petitioners
right to due process was thus clearly violated.
Indeed, labor tribunals are mandated to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily, objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or
procedure.27 However, in every proceeding before it, the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process should not to be ignored but must at all times be
respected.28 Besides, petitioners case concerns their job, considered as a property right, of
which they could not be deprived of without due process. 29
From the foregoing considerations, we find that the NLRC gravely erred in denying due
course to petitioners appeal and in sustaining the Labor Arbiters Decision as same
infringed upon petitioners right to due process. We, therefore, remand the case to the Labor
Arbiter to afford petitioners the opportunity to refute the allegations advanced by
respondent, with the assistance of their counsel de oficio.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 26, 2006 Decision and May 3, 2006
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89644 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter a quo for further proceedings, in
consonance with the requirements of due process.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 172624 December 5, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 172624 December 5, 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 172624 December 5, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

PABLO POLSOTIN, JR., ARWIN RAYALA, GERONIMO LIMPANTE, RAUL DOMDOM,

procedural requirements for dismissing petitioners were likewise satisfied.

You might also like