Almirante: Right to counsel

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Dominador Almirante
Labor case digest

IN A complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims filed by petitioners against respondent De Guia Enterprises, Inc., the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the appeal of petitioners for failure to append a certificate of non-forum shopping and proof of service upon the other party.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition was not signed by all of the petitioners and there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.

From the inception of the case, petitioners were not assisted by counsel. Is the dismissal justified?

Ruling: No.

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 Arwin 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, 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. 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”, we required petitioners to enter the appearance of a counsel. 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.

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. (Pablo Polsotin, Jr., et. al. vs. De Guia Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 172624, Dec. 5, 2011)