Property right

A person’s job is a property right which he cannot be deprived of without due process. This case of Jun, Art, Gerry, Ron and Cary (Jun et. al.) illustrates this rule enshrined in our bill of rights (Article III Section 1, Constitution)

 Jun et.al, were bus drivers and conductors of a bus company (DGI). When they were dismissed from the service they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of back-wages and damages against DGI before the NLRC. Due to financial constraints, they could not afford to hire a lawyer. So they filed and signed their pleadings through Jun.

During the hearings set before the Labor Arbiter (LA), DGI did not even appear despite due notice. It likewise failed to submit its position paper within the period fixed by the LA. Thus on the last hearing held on January 14, 2002, the case was submitted for decision.

Later on however, or on February 8, 2002, DGI belatedly filed its position paper without even furnishing a copy to Jun et.al. Nevertheless the LA admitted said position paper and even relied on it in dismissing the complaint of Jun et.al. It held that they were validly terminated from employment for violation of company rules and regulations and habitual neglect of duties as supported by their employment records submitted by DGI together with its position paper. The LA also added that the procedural requirements for dismissing them were also satisfied.

Without the assistance of counsel, Jun et. al. filed a memorandum of appeal questioning the LA ruling before the NLRC mainly on the ground that the LA should not have relied on the position paper belatedly filed which they said was a mere scrap of paper. They also contended that DGI should have been deemed to have waived its right to present evidence by virtue of its failure to appear during the hearings.

 But the NLRC dismissed the appeal for their failure to append thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon the other party. Jun et.al. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) the NLRC decision after the latter denied their motion for reconsideration. But the CA also denied due course to their petition also because of lack of verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The CA also ruled that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion since it merely complied with the procedural rules governing appeals before it. Were the LA, NLRC and the CA correct?

No. Jun et.al. were not represented by counsel in all instances. Not being lawyers, their lack of thorough understanding of procedural rules and the importance of its strict observance is understandable. Non-lawyer litigants cannot be expected to be well versed in procedural rules as even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure. The CA should have extended some degree of liberality to Jun et.al. to give them a chance to prove their cause with a lawyer to represent or assist them. The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times.

Besides, the case was already submitted for decision sans the position paper of DGI for its failure to timely submit the same when required by the LA. More important is that Jun et.al were not even furnished with a copy of said position paper in order to refute the contents and allegations therein. And since neither did DGI appear in any of the hearings, they were never really afforded the opportunity to rebut DGI’s allegations and charges against them. Their right to due process was thus clearly violated.

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. In every proceeding the essential requirements of due process should not be ignored but must at all times be respected. The case of Jun et.al concerns their job, considered as a property right of which they could not be deprived without due process. The case should thus be remanded to the LA for further proceedings (Polsotin et. al vs. De Guia Enterprises Inc. G.R. 172624, December 5, 2011).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]