CASBADILLO, VS. COURT OF

Ruling

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, t