This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We do not find Sutherland's argument meritorious as technical rules are not necessarily fatal in labor cases; they can be liberally applied if all things being equal any doubt or ambiguity would be resolved in favor of labor.[20] These technicalities and limitations can only be given their fullest effect if the case is substantively unmeritorious; otherwise, and if the defect is similar to the present one and can be verified from the records (as in this case), we have the discretion not to consider them fatal. | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. Technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the working man.[44] This Court may choose not to encumber itself with technicalities and limitations consequent to procedural rules if such will only serve as a hindrance to its duty to decide cases judiciously and in a manner that would put an end with finality to all existing conflicts between the parties. | |||||