SPIC N SPAN Services Corporation vs. Gloria Paje et al.

,
August 25, 2010

FACTS: In February 1998, Gloria Paje and 10 others were dismissed as promo
girlsof Swift Corporation. Paje et al were provided to Swift by Spic N Span Services
Corporation. Paje et al, through their non-lawyer representative, Florencio Peralta,
filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against Swift and Spic N Span. Paje et al won.
Swift and Spic N Span appealed the case to the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the Labor
Arbiter. The Court of Appeals likewise ruled in favor of Paje et al. Spic N Span and
Swift further appealed to the SC where they alleged that there are two procedural
infirmities on the part of Paje et al.
First was the fact that not all of them (Paje et al) signed the pleadings signed before
the NLRC, and second, that Paje et al were represented by a non-lawyer (Peralta);
that under the law, in labor cases, there are only two instances where a non-lawyer
may appear or represent a litigant before the labor arbiter or the NLRC, to wit: (1) If
they represent themselves; or (2) If they represent their organization or members
thereof. Neither can be said of Peralta.
ISSUE: Whether or not such procedural lapse on the part of Paje et al is sufficient
for the dismissal of their complaint against Spic N Span and Swift.
HELD: No. In the hierarchy observed in the dispensation of justice, rules of
procedure can be disregarded in order to serve the ends of justice. Certain labor
rights assume preferred positions in our legal hierarchy. Under the Constitution and
the Labor Code, the State is bound to protect labor and assure the rights of workers
to security of tenure. The State is bound to protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare, and the workers are entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage. Under these fundamental guidelines, Paje et
als right to security of tenure is a preferred constitutional right that technical
infirmities in labor pleadings cannot defeat. The Supreme Court also noted that
even if not all of the complainants signed the pleadings, it is sufficient that some of
them have signed it. The lack of a verification in a pleading is only a formal defect,
not a jurisdictional defect, and is not necessarily fatal to a case. The primary reason
for requiring a verification is simply to ensure that the allegations in the pleading
are done in good faith, are true and correct, and are not mere speculations.
We should remember, too, that certain labor rights assume preferred positions in
our legal hierarchy. Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the State is bound
to protect labor and assure the rights of workers to security of tenure.
Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of its provisions (including its implementing rules and regulations)
shall be resolved in favor of labor. The Constitution, on the other hand,

characterizes labor as a primary social economic force. The State is bound to

protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare, and the workers are entitled
to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. Under these
fundamental guidelines, respondents right to security of tenure is a preferred
constitutional right that technical infirmities in labor pleadings cannot defeat.