SPIC N SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION vs GLORIA PAJE, LOLITA

GOMEZ, MIRIAM CATACUTAN, ESTRELLA ZAPATA, GLORIA SUMANG,

JULIET DINGAL,MYRA AMANTE, and FE S. BERNANDO
G.R. No. 174084, August 25, 2010
By: Maricel P. Dauz

Topic: Procedural and Technicality of the rules

Facts: In February 1998, Gloria Paje and 10 others were dismissed as sales
girls of 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 and other employees 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 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 averification is simply to ensure that the allegations in
the pleading are done in good faith, are true and correct, and are not mere
speculations.