What if a co-defendant in a labor case does not participate in the proceedings before the labor arbiter, and on appeal at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)? Is he barred from pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appeals? This is the issue in the case I am discussing today.

Here, the complainant filed a complaint with the labor arbiter of the NLRC against her employer and one of the employees. During the proceedings both before the labor arbiter and the NLRC, only the defendant-employer actively participated. Since the complainant won at both levels, the employer, and this time co-defendant employee, separately appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Complainant vehemently objected to the co-defendant’s “first participation” in the proceedings. She averred that there were rules to adhere to. Co-defendant was given all the opportunity in the lower proceedings, yet he did not take part. Accordingly, she argued that said defendant must be deemed to have waived his right to appeal and was not entitled to be heard.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. It opined that “in the case at hand, Buban raises that De la Peña has already waived his right to participate and intervene in the present labor complaint on account of, first, his non-submission of position papers and non-participation in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC; and second, filing a petition before a court of law without the assistance of a legal counsel.

“As a consequence, De la Peña has lost his legal standing to seek any affirmative relief. Further, De la Peña signed and filed his own pleading before the CA, without any legal representation.

“Buban argued that De la Peña’s petition should have been considered a mere scrap of paper for failing to observe the formalities required by the Rules. Thus, the CA should have dismissed his petition outright. We cannot countenance Buban’s arguments. To do so would run contrary to the well-settled principle that the application of technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly observed in labor cases to serve the demands of substantial justice.

“It is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that in the adjudication of labor disputes, every and all reasonable means shall be employed to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

“Pertinently, the Labor Code provides that under Article 227 [221]: Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement — In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling, and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

“Corollary thereto, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure provides that in case of non-appearance by the respondent during the . . . scheduled conference . . . despite being duly served with summons, he/she shall be considered to have waived his/her right to file a position paper. The labor arbiter shall immediately terminate the mandatory conciliation and mediation conference and direct the complainant to file a verified position paper and submit evidence in support thereof. Then the labor arbiter shall render a decision on the basis of the evidence on record.

“Meanwhile, in case of the non-appearance of any of the parties during the hearing or clarificatory conference despite due notice, proceedings shall be conducted ex-parte and the case shall be deemed submitted for decision. Verily, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure merely provides that the effect of non-appearance includes waiver of right to file a position paper on the part of the non-appearing party and ex parte determination of the case.

“Further, in labor cases, decisions may be reached based only on position papers and supporting documents without a formal trial and without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law. To require otherwise would render nugatory the non-litigious and summary nature of the proceedings.

“Thus, the CA acted accordingly when it took cognizance of the Petition filed by De la Peña assailing the NLRC Decision, in the greater interest of due process and for the expeditious dispensation of justice.”

The facts and quoted redacted portions of the decision are from Francheska Aleen Balaba Buban v. Nilo de la Peña (G.R. No. 268399, 24 January 2024).