Case Digest (G.R. No. 172624)
Facts:
Pablo Polsotin, Jr., Arwin Rayala, Geronimo Limpante, Raul Domdom, and Oscar Andrin v. De Guia Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 172624, December 05, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners — Polsotin, Rayala, Limpante, Domdom and Andrin — were employed by De Guia Enterprises, Inc. as bus drivers and conductors. On July 17, 2001 they filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal and for backwages and damages, alleging they had been terminated without cause and without due process.
During the Labor Arbiter hearings the respondent repeatedly failed to appear despite due notice and did not timely file its position paper; the case was submitted for decision on January 14, 2002. On February 8, 2002 respondent belatedly filed a position paper but did not furnish petitioners a copy. The Labor Arbiter (Waldo Emerson R. Gan) rendered a decision on December 27, 2002 dismissing petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit, finding termination valid and procedural requirements satisfied based on the employer’s records and the admitted position paper.
Unrepresented, petitioners filed a Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC, with Rayala acting as their representative. The NLRC, in a Resolution dated January 30, 2004 (Presiding Commissioner Roy V. Seneres, with Commissioners Vicente S.E. Veloso and Romeo L. Go concurring), dismissed the appeal for failure to append a certificate of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon respondent, and affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration explaining ignorance of the NLRC’s new rules, claiming they had furnished a registry receipt and included a certification of non-forum shopping in their motion, but the NLRC denied reconsideration on February 18, 2005.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 89644), asserting that the CA should be liberal in applying procedural rules because they were unrepresented and their dismissal implicated due process. On January 26, 2006 the Court of Appeals (penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., concurring Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Arturo G. Tayag) denied due course to the petition and dismissed it because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the CA petition lacked the individual signatures of all petitioners, and because there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on May 3, 2006.
Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In view of petitioners’ lack of counsel and the procedural defects in their pleadings, should the Court relax strict technical requirements and give their appeal due course?
- Were petitioners denied due process when the Labor Arbiter admitted and relied on respondent’s belated position paper that had not been furnished to petitioners, thereby war...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)