Right to counsel in labor cases; liberality rule applied - G.R. No. 172624

G.R. No. 172624

"x x x.


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 employee’s 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]
x x x."