Petitioners, who were bus drivers and conductors, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer, respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent. The NLRC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to submit proof of non-forum shopping and proof of service. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve substantial justice. While tribunals should use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily, the fundamental requirements of due process must be respected. The petitioners' case involved their job, a property right, of which they could not be deprived without due process.
Petitioners, who were bus drivers and conductors, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer, respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent. The NLRC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to submit proof of non-forum shopping and proof of service. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve substantial justice. While tribunals should use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily, the fundamental requirements of due process must be respected. The petitioners' case involved their job, a property right, of which they could not be deprived without due process.
Petitioners, who were bus drivers and conductors, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer, respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent. The NLRC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to submit proof of non-forum shopping and proof of service. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve substantial justice. While tribunals should use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily, the fundamental requirements of due process must be respected. The petitioners' case involved their job, a property right, of which they could not be deprived without due process.
Petitioners, who were bus drivers and conductors, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer, respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent. The NLRC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failing to submit proof of non-forum shopping and proof of service. The Supreme Court ruled that strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve substantial justice. While tribunals should use reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily, the fundamental requirements of due process must be respected. The petitioners' case involved their job, a property right, of which they could not be deprived without due process.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Polsotin, et. al v.
De Guia Enterprises, GR 172624, Dec 5,
2011. First Division Del Castillo
FACTS: Petitioners Polsotin, Rayala, Limpante, Domdom and
Andrin were bus drivers and conductors of respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc.. 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. 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. On February 8, 2002, respondent filed its position paper without furnishing petitioners a copy of the same. Labor Arbiter held that petitioners were validly terminated. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not in spite of technicalities, petitioners are
still entitled to due consideration of their petition?
RULING: Yes. Strict application of technical rules should be set
aside to serve the broader interest of substantial justice. 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. 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. It bears stressing that "the dismissal of an employee’s appeal on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor.” The Court has often set aside the strict application of procedural technicalities to serve the broader interest of substantial justice. 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. 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. Besides, petitioners’ case concerns their job, considered as a property right, of which they could not be deprived of without due process.
G.R. No. L-38434 December 23, 1933 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Marciano Medina Y Diokno (Alias Mariano Medina, Alias Alejandro Dola), Defendant