Labor Appeals: Failure to Serve Appeal Memorandum Is Not Jurisdictional

The Supreme Court recently clarified an important point for labor cases: an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is not automatically invalid simply because the appellant failed to send a copy of the appeal memorandum to the opposing party. In Lei Sheryll Fernandez v. Botica Claudio (G.R. No. 205870, August 13, 2014), the Court ruled that such a lapse is merely a formal defect, not a jurisdictional one, and should not bar the NLRC from giving due course to an appeal.

The case also serves as a reminder that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard—and that an aggrieved party who later participates in the proceedings cannot claim denial of due process.

The Facts of the Case

Lei Sheryll Fernandez was hired as a trainee at Botica Claudio, a drugstore in Morong, Rizal, in November 2002. She was later promoted to sales clerk/pharmacy aide. In January 2006, she was terminated. Fernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming she was underpaid, worked long hours without overtime pay, and that the charges against her were fabricated.

The employer, Guadalupe Jose, argued that Fernandez was validly dismissed for going on absence without official leave (AWOL), dispensing wrong medicines, allowing customers to buy on credit without consent, and dishonesty.

The Procedural History

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that while just cause existed for Fernandez's dismissal based on AWOL, the dismissal was effected without procedural due process. The LA ordered the employer to pay separation pay and unpaid 13th month pay.

Fernandez appealed to the NLRC. Copies of her notice of appeal and appeal memorandum were sent by registered mail to an attorney who was, in fact, her own former counsel—not the employer's counsel.

The NLRC reversed the LA's ruling, finding Fernandez was illegally dismissed. The NLRC ordered the employer to pay backwages, separation pay, and overtime pay totaling over P297,000.

The employer then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Fernandez's failure to furnish her with copies of the appeal documents deprived her of due process. The CA agreed, nullified the NLRC's ruling, and reinstated the LA's decision.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the NLRC's decision. The Court made two key points.

First, the employer's certiorari petition was premature. The employer filed a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC but did not wait for it to be resolved before going to the CA. The Court reiterated that filing a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can avail of a petition for certiorari. This gives the NLRC the opportunity to correct its own errors.

Second, the failure to serve the appeal memorandum is not fatal. While the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure require the appellant to furnish the other party a copy of the appeal memorandum, the Court has consistently held that failure to do so is only a formal lapse—an excusable neglect—and not a jurisdictional defect. The proper remedy is for the NLRC to require the appellant to provide copies, not to dismiss the appeal outright.

The Court also noted that the employer eventually filed not one but two motions for reconsideration from the NLRC Resolution. By participating in the proceedings, the employer was afforded the opportunity to be heard, which is the essence of due process. As the Court held in Angeles v. Fernandez, the availment of the opportunity to seek reconsideration of a ruling in labor cases amounts to due process.

Practical Takeaways

• Failure to serve an appeal memorandum is not fatal to a labor appeal. It is a formal lapse, not a jurisdictional defect. The NLRC should instead require the appellant to comply.
• A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to certiorari. An aggrieved party must first seek reconsideration from the NLRC and wait for its resolution before filing a petition for certiorari with the CA.
• Due process means the opportunity to be heard. If a party later participates in the proceedings—such as by filing motions for reconsideration—it cannot claim denial of due process.
• For employers: Do not rely on technicalities alone to defeat an appeal. If the appeal is defective, the proper course is to ask the NLRC to require compliance, not to assume the appeal was never perfected.
• For employees: Even if a procedural lapse occurs in an appeal, the merits of the case may still be reviewed. Substantive justice prevails over mere technicalities.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.