The unemployment rate in the country reached a new record-high of 34.2 percent or an estimated 14 million Filipinos, according to the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey results.
A nationwide survey fielded over Feb. 20-23 among 1,200 respondents, found out that unemployment among adults has increased from 27.9 percent (11 million Filipinos) in the previous quarter to 34.2 percent at present.
Malacañang immediately disputed the results of the SWS survey on higher unemployment rate while casting doubt on its polling methods.
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said the SWS survey was more of a perception rather than reality.
Remonde said the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) found that the latest survey from SWS is “not as accurate” as its own “labor force survey.”
“According to the DoLE, the labor force survey uses the internationally accepted standards. It has a very much wider universe and it is really based more on reality rather than perception,” he said in a news briefing.
Still, Remonde said government will take the SWS findings, whether accurate or not, into consideration to guide the government in providing more job opportunities for Filipinos.
The SWS survey found that of those unemployed, 13 percent voluntarily left their old job, while 12 percent were retrenched, consisting of nine percent who were laid off and three percent whose previous contracts were not renewed.
Meanwhile, six percent never worked before the time of the survey.
The independent pollster said SWS surveys on unemployment have been recorded at 20 percent and above since May, 2005, except for December, 2007 when it was at 17.5 percent.
SWS data since 1993 showed that unemployment was below 15 percent until March, 2004, and then ranged from 16.5 percent to 19 percent from August, 2004 to March, 2005.
“Over the past four quarters, adult unemployment is dominated by those who voluntarily left their old work, and those who were retrenched – either by getting laid off or by not having their contracts renewed,” SWS said.
The survey group explained that data on unemployment refers to the population of adults in the labor force.
“This is because respondents in the standard SWS surveys are those at least 18 years old. The 1993-2008 figures are consistently based on the traditional definition of unemployment as not working and at the same time looking for work. Those not working but not looking for work are excluded from the labor force; these are housewives, retired, disabled, students, etc.,” SWS explained.
It further cited that the official lower boundary of the labor force has always been 15 years of age.
It said that formerly, the “official definition” of unemployment was not working and looking for work.
However, SWS noted that from April, 2005 onward, the new official definition has included the “concept of availability for work; it subtracts those not available for work, even though looking for work, and adds those available for work but not seeking work for the following reasons: tired/believe no work is available, awaiting results of a job application, temporarily ill/disabled, bad weather, and waiting for rehire/job recall.”
It said that if the “official definition” is applied, the unemployment rate among adults 18 years old and above is 25.9 percent in the SWS February, 2009 survey.
“It is lower than when computed using the traditional definition because the correction for those looking for work but ‘not truly available’ is much larger than the correction for those ‘actually available’ though not looking for work at the moment,” SWS said.
Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense if the ends of justice will be defeated. This is once more illustrated in this case of Ed.
Ed was employed in a cement company (UCC) in 1996 starting as a planner in the motor pool section. In the course of his employment he was assigned and promoted to different positions. But when he was already in a supervisory level position, he got involved in an alleged theft of company property and after investigation establishing his culpability, was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.
Thus Ed filed an action against UCC and its plant manager for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. In its decision the Labor Arbiter (LA) found UCC guilty of illegal dismissal as it failed to establish the commission of the theft much less Ed’s culpability. So the LA ordered Ed’s reinstatement with back wages plus moral and exemplary damages all totaling P1,185,835.25. Initially this was affirmed by the NLRC modifying only the award of moral and exemplary damages into P100,000 and P50,000. But on UCC’s motion for reconsideration the NLRC reversed and set aside its previous ruling and dismissed Ed’s complaint.
Posthaste, Ed filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA). But the latter dismissed his petition outright for deficient payment of docket fee, failure of his counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorney’s number and the date and place of issue of his IBP OR, failure to append a legible copy of annex “E” and improper verification as it is not based on personal knowledge since it was only done by his wife as attorney-in-fact.
Ed filed a motion for reconsideration explaining the procedural lapses pointing out that: the petition itself contained a reservation on his willingness and readiness to pay the deficiency that may be further assessed as the fee he paid was based only on a prior inquiry via long distance. To settle the deficiency, he sent a postal money order for P1,000; the roll of attorney’s number as well as the IBP OR also appeared in the petition but in other parts; the illegible copy of annex “E” is only one of the annexes that should not merit outright dismissal and to cure it, he submitted a clearer copy; while the verification was executed by Ed’s wife whom he constituted as his attorney-in-fact only because he was then already working abroad.
Notwithstanding the exhaustive explanation, the CA still denied his motion for reconsideration. Was the CA correct?
No. Subsequent and substantial compliance by the appellant may warrant the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. Strict and rigid application of technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided. Case should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties to ventilate their causes and defenses rather than on some technicality or procedural imperfections.
In this case Ed readily corrected the procedural lapses in his petition cited by the CA as reason for the dismissal thereof. In all, he subsequently and substantially complied with the procedural requirements initially found lacking or defective by the appellate court.
Undeniably, the CA was correct in dismissing outright his petition for certiorari. However, upon motion for reconsideration and with a full and complete explanation, the CA should have reconsidered its prior dismissal and reinstated the petition. It is not remiss for the CA to adjudge Ed’s case based on the merits especially with the conflicting decisions rendered by the NLRC (Hipol vs. NLRC etc. G.R. 181818, December 18, 2008).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
E-mail at: firstname.lastname@example.org
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison
Updated February 18, 2009 12:00 AM
View previous articles of this column.