STI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, SALVADOR CARANZA, MARIANO TAN, AMADO EVANGELISTA, MANUEL EVANGELISTA, EUSEBIO TABULOD, JR., MANUEL T. RODULFO, JOHNNY BUMATAY, FRANCISCO DOMINGO, NOLITO…

Before us is a petition for review of the decision^[1]
dated July 26, 1999 of the Court of Appeals^[2] in
CA-G.R. SP No. 51216 dismissing the petition for certiorari of the decision^[3]
dated January 31, 1996 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR
Case No. 008951-95 which affirmed the decision^[4] dated
April 21, 1995 of Labor Arbiter Romulus Protasio ruling in favor of the
respondents.

The facts, as found by the appellate court, are as follows:

The petitioners are truck drivers and truck helpers of herein
respondents Siment Transport, Inc. (STI, for brevity), Family Mercantile (FM, for brevity), Simon
Enterprises (SE, for brevity), and their owners, namely, Ely Chua, Willam Chua,
Simon Chuahe, and Elizabeth Tan. JRB
Manpower Agency and Edwin Bumatay were likewise included as respondents in the
instant petition. The petitioners are
Salvador Caranza, Mariano Tan, Amado Evangelista, Manuel Evangelista, Eusebio
Tabulod, Jr., Manuel T. Rodulfo, Johnny Bumatay, Francisco Domingo, Nolito
Branzuela, Domizalde Bumatay, Fernando Aribon, Juneliam Quinanola, Jesus
Ferrer, Raymundo Bumatay, Jr., Manuel Mostrales, Rogelio Mazo, Rolando Evasco,
Felixberto Badinas, Gerry Bolido, Gregorio Galvez, Jr., Charito Moscosa,
Marcelino Villanueva, Ibaristo Lacata, Felix Orogan, Gerry Conda, Dennis
Sanchez, Pablo Araos, Nario Bernaldez, Lito Yamba, Andres Noval, Judy Vicente,
David Cajes and Felipe Casbadillo.

The petitioner drivers formed STI Drivers Association which was
registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE, for brevity)
under Registration Certificate No. NCR-UR-1-1 188-94. On May 2, 1994, the said
union filed a petition for certification election duly signed by Atty. Ernesto
Arellano. On June 13, 1994, Med-arbiter
Brigada Fadrigon issued an order dismissing the petition. On appeal to the
DOLE, Undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma affirmed the said order on August 25,
1994.

Pending resolution of the appeal to the DOLE, however, on June
29, 1994, petitioner drivers Salvador Caranza, Mariano Tan, Amado Evangelista,
Manuel Rudolfo, Johnny Bumatay and Eusebio Tabulod, Jr. were dismissed by
respondent STI for violation of the “Union Security Clause” provided for in
respondent’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA, for brevity) with the
Federation of Democratic Trade Unions- STI Workers Union Chapter (FDTU-STI, for
brevity). Subsequently, the concerned
petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and
payment of damages against the respondents before the Regional Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC. On the same day,
the petitioner drivers also filed a complaint for underpayment of their
vacation leave, sick leave and 13th month pay against the respondents.

The petitioner truck helpers (pahinantes)
were also dismissed for abandonment of work when they failed to report for
work on July 13, 1994 on the ground that they allegedly attended an
organizational meeting of the drivers’ union. Respondent JRB sent notices to
the concerned petitioners requiring them to report for work with a stern
warning that their employment would be terminated if they failed to
comply. Inasmuch as they disobeyed the
said order, they were dismissed for abandonment of work. On August 2, 1994, they filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and payment of damages against the
respondents before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.

On October 1, 1994, the petitioner drivers Francisco Domingo,
Nolito Branzuela, Domizalde Bumatay, Fernando Aribon, Juneliam Quinanola, Jesus
Ferrer, Manuel Mostrales, Raymundo Bumatay, Jr., Rogelio Mazo, and Rolando
Evasco were also dismissed on the ground that they failed to join FDTU-STI as
required by the union security clause of their CBA. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor
practice and damages. This case was
consolidated with the first case filed by the first group of petitioner
drivers.

The three cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter
Ernesto Dinopol. They were later on
re-raffled and assigned to Labor Arbiter Romulus Protasio. The parties were required to submit their
respective position papers. However, petitioners failed to submit their
position paper. Hence, Labor Arbiter
Protasio proceeded to hear the case ex
parte. On April 21, 1995, Labor
Arbiter Protasio dismissed the three consolidated complaints, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of
the complainants in Case No. 1 by JRB Manpower Agency/Edwin Bumatay and the
dismissal of complainants by respondent Siment Transport, Inc. and its
officers, William Chua, Ely Chua, Simon Chuahe and Elizabeth Tan in Case No. 2
as valid and legal. Paragraph Case No.
3 is also dismissed since the benefits prayed for have already been fully paid
for as here before indicated.”^[5]

On May 9, 1995, the petitioners appealed the case to the NLRC
but, in a resolution dated June 30, 1995, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for
being filed out of time. The motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied.

They filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
questioning the decision of the NLRC but the appellate court dismissed the
same. The Court of Appeals held that
the petitioners were not denied due process inasmuch as their counsel, a
certain Villamor Mostrales, was informed in open court to submit petitioners’
position paper, but he did not. In
affirming the legality of the petitioners’ dismissal, the Court of Appeals
found that they committed an act of disloyalty when, during the existence of
the CBA, they organized another union (the STI Drivers’ Association) and then
filed a petition for certification election outside the 60-day freedom period,
in violation of the “contract bar rule” under Articles 253 and 253-A of the
Labor Code.

Hence, this petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals based on this sole assignment of error:

“I

“PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE
MISREPRESENTED BY AN IMPOSTOR LAWYER OR A NON-LAWYER.”^[6]

The petitioners pray that the case be remanded to the Regional
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC on the ground that they were denied due process
for being represented by an impostor lawyer who was negligent in attending to
their case from the moment it was filed up to its dismissal by the appellate
court. They claim that a certain
Villamor Mostrales led them to believe that he was a lawyer who could represent
them in the consolidated labor complaints against herein respondents. However, Mr. Mostrales failed to file the
necessary position papers required by Labor Arbiter Protasio. As a result, Labor Arbiter Protasio declared
the petitioners in default and ruled against them on the basis of the position
paper submitted by the respondents. The
petitioners discovered that Mr. Mostrales was not a lawyer after they secured a
certification from the Office of the Bar Confidant that Mr. Mostrales’ name is
not included in the Roll of Attorneys. They now argue that the actions of the impostor lawyer denied them due
process for the reason that they were not given competent representation during
the hearing of the case and thus the proceedings a quo were null and void.

We deny the petition.

The records show that, aside from Mr. Mostrales, a counsel named
Atty. Ernesto R. Arellano, represented them in all the stages of the
proceedings. In fact, the Labor Arbiter
issued an order notifying Atty. Arellano of the reglementary period within
which to file the petitioners’ position papers. We herein quote the judgment of the NLRC denying petitioners’
motion for reconsideration as proof of this fact, to wit:

“Records show that contrary to complainants’ allegations, the Order
of February 20, 1995 was served to their counsel, ‘Atty. Ernesto R. Arellano of
Rm. 400, Jino Bldg., Timog Avenue, Quezon City.’ It was received by certain
‘Edmond T. Lao’ on February 27, 1995 (See Record, p. 268). xxx.”^[7]

In addition, the petitioners failed to dispute the fact that the
written notification of the order of dismissal of the petition for certification
election was directed to Atty. Arellano as petitioners’ counsel of record.^[8]
And after the adverse decision of the Labor Arbiter, Atty. Ernesto Arellano
filed the appeal to the NLRC, as evidenced by his signature on the appeal
brief.^[9]
Also, the NLRC directed the notice of its resolution (dismissing the
petitioners’ appeal for having been filed out of time) to his law firm,
Arellano and Associates.^[10] The
earlier petition that they filed before this Court (involving the same parties
and issues), which was remanded to the Court of Appeals as a result of our
ruling in St. Martin Funeral Home vs. National
Labor Relations Commission,^[11] was likewise signed by the same Atty.
Ernesto R. Arellano.^[12]
These undisputed facts prove that, during the entire proceedings, a bona-fide
lawyer represented them and filed pleadings in their behalf.

Based on the foregoing,
we find that the petitioners were duly represented by a bona-fide lawyer and
the latter’s failure to file the required position papers before the Labor Arbiter
or to appeal on time to the NLRC is not a ground to declare the proceedings a quo null and void. We have ruled time and again that any act
performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is
regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners’ counsel
may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.^[13]
Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by this Court in cases where
reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of
law, or when its application “results in the outright deprivation of one’s
property through a technicality.”^[14] None
of these exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the instant case.

In the case at bar, the petitioners merely claimed deprivation of
their rights as a result of misrepresentations perpetrated by an impostor
lawyer. But, as already discussed, we
cannot overlook the fact that they retained the services of Atty. Arellano. The petitioners failed to show any evidence
that the services of Atty. Arellano violated their right to due process or
deprived them of their property through a technicality. No gross negligence can be attributed to
Atty. Arellano inasmuch as he did not totally abandon or disregard his clients’
cases. He filed pleadings for and in
their behalf. The petitioners should
therefore, as far as this suit is concerned, bear the consequences of their
faulty option. After all, in the
application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded
against is not the lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to
be heard. The question is not whether the petitioners succeeded in defending
their interest but whether the petitioners had the opportunity to present their
side.^[15]

Although nothing can be done to reverse the decision of the
appellate court, the aggrieved petitioners can still explore the feasibility of
filing the appropriate criminal, civil and administrative cases against Mr.
Mostrales and Atty. Arellano, as warranted. Damages, after all, can be recovered as a result of fraud or inaction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and
Morales, JJ., concur.

Puno, (Chairman), J., on
official leave.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.(now Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos,
Jr. and Mariano M. Umali; Rollo, pp.
36-47.

^[2]
Sixth Division.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 95-102.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 110-126.

^[5]
Rollo, p. 126.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 30.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 100.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 162.

^[9]
Rollo, pp. 108-109.

^[10]
Rollo, p. 195.

^[11]
295 SCRA 494 [1998].

^[12]
Rollo, pp. 91-93.

^[13]
Heirs of Elias Lorilla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118655, April 12, 2000; Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413, 428 [1997]; Casolita, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 275
SCRA 257, 264-265 [1997]; Salonga vs.
Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534, 545 [1997]; People vs. Salido, 258 SCRA 291,
295 [1996]; B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 206
SCRA 28, 39 [1992]; Manila Electric Co. vs.
Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 200, 208
[1990].

^[14]
Salonga, vs. Court of Appeals, 269
SCRA 534 [1997].

^[15]
Villa Rhecar Bus vs. de la Cruz, 157 SCRA 13 [1988].