SUMMONS

Q. In the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, only the unregistered trade
name of the employercorporation, Hacienda Lanutan, and its
administrator-manager were impleaded and subsequently held liable for
illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC motu proprio included the
corporate name of the employer as jointly and severally liable for the
workers claims. There is no dispute that Hacienda Lanutan which was
owned solely by the employer-corporation was impleaded and heard. It
was represented by its corporate officer in the proceedings before the
Labor Arbiter. Is the NLRCs action justified?

A. Yes, the action is justified. In quasi-judicial proceedings, procedural

rules governing service of summons are not strictly
construed. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE THEREOF IS
SUFFICIENT. In labor cases, punctillious adherence to stringent technical
rules may be relaxed in the interest of the worker; it should not defeat
the complete and equitable resolution of the rights and obligations of
the parties. Furthermore, the NLRC is given the power to correct, amend,
or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in the substance or in the
form of the proceedings before it. The non-inclusion of the corporate
name of the employer was a mere procedural error which did not at all
affect the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals. (Pison-Arceo Agricultural
and Development Corp. v. NLRC, 279 SCRA 312, September 18, 1997)