Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 172624 December 5, 2011
PABLO POLSOTN, !R., AR"N RA#ALA, GERONMO LMPANTE, RAUL DOMDOM, AND OSCAR
ANDRN,Petitioners,
vs.
DE GUA ENTERPRSES, NC., Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
DEL CASTLLO, J.:
" #or$er cannot be deprived of his %ob, a propert& ri'ht, #ithout satisf&in' the re(uire)ents of due process. "s
enshrined in our bill of ri'hts, no person shall be deprived of life, libert& or propert& #ithout due process of la#.
*
This Petition for Revie# on Certiorari
+
assails the ,anuar& +-, +..- Decision
/
of the !ourt of "ppeals 0!"1 in
!"23.R. SP No. 45-66, #hich denied due course and dis)issed the Petition for !ertiorari filed there#ith b&
petitioners Pablo Polsotin, ,r. 0Polsotin1, "r#in Ra&ala 0Ra&ala1, 3eroni)o 7i)pante 07i)pante1, Raul Do)do)
0Do)do)1 and Oscar "ndrin 0"ndrin1 and conse(uentl&, affir)ed the National 7abor Relations !o))ission8s
0N7R!1 dis)issal of their appeal for non2co)pliance #ith procedural rules. "lso assailed is the Ma& /, +..-
Resolution
6
of the !" #herein said court li$e#ise refused to 'ive due course to petitioners8 Motion for
Reconsideration and instead affir)ed and reiterated its assailed Decision.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioners Polsotin, Ra&ala, 7i)pante, Do)do) and "ndrin 0petitioners1 #ere bus drivers and conductors of
respondent De 3uia nterprises, Inc. 0respondent1. "lle'in' that the& #ere dis)issed #ithout cause and due
process, petitioners filed on ,ul& *9, +..* a co)plaint for ille'al dis)issal and pa&)ent of bac$#a'es and
da)a'es a'ainst respondent before the N7R!.
Durin' the hearin's set before the 7abor "rbiter, respondent failed to appear despite due notice.
:
It li$e#ise
failed to ti)el& sub)it its position paper. Thus, on the last hearin' held on ,anuar& *6, +..+, the case #as
sub)itted for decision.
-
On Februar& 4, +..+, respondent filed its position paper #ithout furnishin' petitioners a cop& of the sa)e.
9
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On Dece)ber +9, +..+, the 7abor "rbiter rendered a Decision
4
dis)issin' petitioners8 co)plaint for lac$ of
)erit. It held that petitioners #ere validl& ter)inated fro) e)plo&)ent for violation of co)pan& rules and
re'ulations as #ell as for 'ross and habitual ne'lect of duties as supported b& petitioners8 e)plo&)ent records
sub)itted b& respondent. The 7abor "rbiter added that the
procedural re(uire)ents for dis)issin' petitioners #ere li$e#ise satisfied.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
;ithout the assistance of counsel, petitioners, throu'h Ra&ala as their representative, filed a Me)orandu) of
"ppeal
5
#ith the N7R!. The& contended that the 7abor "rbiter co))itted 'rave abuse of discretion in renderin'
a decision anchored )ainl& on respondent8s evidence. It #as their assertion that b& failin' to appear at the
scheduled hearin's and to file a position paper on ti)e #ithout an& %ustifiable reason, respondent should have
been dee)ed to have #aived its ri'ht to sub)it its o#n evidence. Thus, the& pra&ed that respondent8s belatedl&
filed position paper be considered a )ere scrap of paper. The& also pointed out that said position paper
interposed ar'u)ents onl& as a'ainst petitioners Polsotin and Ra&ala and thus cannot be used a'ainst the other
petitioners.
In a Resolution
*.
dated ,anuar& /., +..6, the N7R! dis)issed the appeal for failure of petitioners to append
thereto a certificate of non2foru) shoppin' and proof of service upon the other part&. The N7R! then affir)ed
the Decision appealed fro).
Fro) this resolution, petitioners )oved for reconsideration b& e<plainin' that their lapses #ere due to their
i'norance of the e<istence of the Ne# Rules of Procedure of the N7R!. Nevertheless, the& clarified that the&
)ana'ed to dul& furnish the respondent a cop& of their Me)orandu) of "ppeal and that the re'istr& receipt
sho#in' proof of service #as attached to the ori'inal cop& of the said pleadin' #hen it #as filed #ith the doc$et
section of the N7R!. Moreover, at the botto) of said )otion for reconsideration is a certification that there is no
pendin' case involvin' the sa)e cause of action in an& court and that petitioners did not co))it foru)2
shoppin'.
**
The )otion for reconsideration #as ho#ever denied b& the N7R! in an Order
*+
dated Februar& *4, +..:.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari
*/
i)plorin' the !" to be )ore liberal in the application of the rules of
procedure considerin' that their dis)issal fro) service #as effected #ithout due process as the& #ere not 'iven
a)ple opportunit& to be heard and to refute respondent8s alle'ations a'ainst the). The& pra&ed that their
appeal be 'iven due course.
On ,anuar& +-, +..-, the !" rendered a Decision
*6
den&in' due course and dis)issin' the petition for the
follo#in' reasons= first, the verification and certification of non2foru) shoppin' attached to the petition #as not
si'ned b& all of the petitioners> and, second, there #as no sho#in' of 'rave abuse of discretion since the N7R!
)erel& co)plied #ith the procedural rules 'overnin' appeals before it. Therefore, it could not be faulted in
den&in' petitioners8 appeal.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
*:
#hich #as, ho#ever, denied b& the !" in its Resolution
*-
dated
Ma& /, +..-.1awphi1
?ence, petitioners, a'ain #ithout the benefit of counsel, brou'ht this case before this !ourt to once )ore see$
lenienc& in the application of the rules. It #as onl& on Septe)ber 4, +.*. or after the parties have sub)itted
their respective Me)oranda that the Public "ttorne&8s Office entered its appearance on behalf on the
petitioners.
*9
On ,anuar& /*, +.**, #e resolved to note said entr& of appearance.
*4
$$%e
;?T?R @ @ @ IN SPIT OF T!?NI!"7ITIS, PTITIONRS "R STI77 NTIT7D TO @ @ @ DA
!ONSIDR"TION OF T?IR PTITION @ @ @.
*5
O%r R%&'()
;e find )erit in the petition.
Strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve the broader interest of substantial justice.
Petitioners8 appeal before the N7R! #as dis)issed purel& on technical 'rounds as it did not contain the
re(uired certification of non2foru) shoppin' and proof of service upon the respondent. I))ediatel&, petitioners
rectified these lapses b& filin' their )otion for reconsideration indicatin' therein that there #as no intention on
their part to co))it foru) shoppin' and that the re'istr& receipt sho#in' proof of service upon respondent #as
attached to their Me)orandu) of "ppeal filed #ith the N7R!. ;ith respect to their petition for certiorari #ith the
!", petitioners failed to affi< their individual si'natures on top of their t&pe#ritten na)es in the verification and
certification of non2foru) shoppin' attached to the petition. On this basis and on the conclusion that the N7R!
did not co))it 'rave abuse of discretion in dis)issin' petitioners8 appeal on technical 'rounds, the !" denied
due course to the petition and dis)issed the sa)e.
Note, ho#ever, that in both instances, petitioners #ere not represented b& a la#&er. The& had no counsel on
record and had been filin' and si'nin' all pleadin's onl& throu'h their representative, petitioner Ra&ala. There
#as no sho#in' that their case #as directl& handled or at the ver& least, that the& #ere assisted b& a counsel.
Not bein' la#&ers, petitioners8 lac$ of thorou'h understandin' of procedural rules as #ell as the i)portance of
its strict observance is understandable. "s held in a case,
+.
a non2la#&er liti'ant cannot be e<pected to be #ell2
versed on the rules of procedure as even the )ost e<perienced la#&ers 'et tan'led in the #eb of procedure.
"#are that petitioners are not represented b& counsel, the !" could have been )ore prudent b& 'ivin'
petitioners ti)e to en'a'e the services of a la#&er or at least b& re)indin' the) of the i)portance of retainin'
one. It is #orth& to )ention at this point that the ri'ht to counsel, bein' intert#ined #ith the ri'ht to due process,
is 'uaranteed b& the !onstitution to an& person #hether the proceedin' is ad)inistrative, civil or cri)inal.
+*
The
!" should have e<tended so)e de'ree of liberalit& so as to 'ive the part& a chance to prove their cause #ith a
la#&er to represent or to assist the).
In line #ith this and as Bthe ri'ht of counsel is absolute and )a& be invo$ed at all ti)esB,
++
#e re(uired
petitioners to enter the appearance of a counsel.
+/
Apon petitioners8 )anifestation of their failure to secure the
services of a counsel due to financial constraints, the !ourt resolved to appoint a counsel de oficio to assist
the) in liti'atin' their case.
+6
It bears stressin' that Bthe dis)issal of an e)plo&ee8s appeal on purel& technical 'round is inconsistent #ith the
constitutional )andate on protection to labor.B
+:
The !ourt has often set aside the strict application of procedural
technicalities to serve the broader interest of substantial %ustice.
+-
Petitioners were denied the right to due process.
" careful consideration of the facts of the case convinces us that petitioners8 appeal should have been 'iven due
course. It )a& be recalled that respondent failed to ti)el& sub)it its position paper #hen re(uired b& the 7abor
"rbiter, hence, the case #as sub)itted for decision sans the sa)e. Nonetheless, #hen respondent filed its
position paper, the 7abor "rbiter ad)itted the sa)e and relied on it in co)in' up #ith a decision that petitioners
#ere validl& ter)inated. More i)portant is that petitioners #ere not even furnished a cop& of respondent8s
position paper in order for the) to refute the contents and alle'ations therein. "nd since neither did respondent
appear in an& of the hearin's conducted before the 7abor "rbiter, petitioners #ere never reall& afforded an
opportunit& to rebut respondent8s alle'ations and char'es a'ainst the) or to introduce evidence to refute the).
Petitioners8 ri'ht to due process #as thus clearl& violated.
Indeed, labor tribunals are )andated to use all reasonable )eans to ascertain the facts in each case speedil&,
ob%ectivel& and #ithout re'ard to technicalities of la# or procedure.
+9
?o#ever, in ever& proceedin' before it, the
funda)ental and essential re(uire)ents of due process should not to be i'nored but )ust at all ti)es be
respected.
+4
Cesides, petitioners8 case concerns their %ob, considered as a propert& ri'ht, of #hich the& could not
be deprived of #ithout due process.
+5
Fro) the fore'oin' considerations, #e find that the N7R! 'ravel& erred in den&in' due course to petitioners8
appeal and in sustainin' the 7abor "rbiter8s Decision as sa)e infrin'ed upon petitioners8 ri'ht to due process.
;e, therefore, re)and the case to the 7abor "rbiter to afford petitioners the opportunit& to refute the alle'ations
advanced b& respondent, #ith the assistance of their counsel de oficio.
"*ERE+ORE, the petition is GRANTED. The ,anuar& +-, +..- Decision and Ma& /, +..- Resolution of the
!ourt of "ppeals in !"23.R. SP No. 45-66 are RE,ERSED and SET ASDE. The case is REMANDED to the
7abor "rbiter a quo for further proceedin's, in consonance #ith the re(uire)ents of due process.
SO ORDRD.
MARANO C. DEL CASTLLO
"ssociate ,ustice
; !ON!AR=
RENATO C. CORONA
!hief ,ustice
!hairperson
TERESTA !. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
"ssociate ,ustice
LUCAS P. BERSAMN
"ssociate ,ustice
MARTN S. ,LLARAMA, !R.
"ssociate ,ustice
! R T I F I ! " T I O N
Pursuant to Section */, "rticle VIII of the !onstitution, it is hereb& certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as assi'ned to the #riter of the opinion of the
!ourt8s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
!hief ,ustice