This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contention lacks merit. The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. Procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases as the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner. Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a party of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required.[14] Moreover, averments in the pleadings, not the title, are controlling[15] in determining the nature of the proceeding. | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority of some corporate officers to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, we recognized the authority of a general manager or acting general manager to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping;[9] in Pfizer v. Galan, we upheld the validity of a verification signed by an "employment specialist" who had not even presented any proof of her authority to represent the company;[10] in Novelty Philippines, Inc., v. CA, we ruled that a personnel officer who signed the petition but did not attach the authority from the company is authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certificate;[11] and in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled that the Chairperson of the Board and President of the Company can sign the verification and certificate against non-forum shopping even without the submission of the board's authorization.[12] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It would be more in accord with substantial justice and equity to overlook the procedural lapse, and allow the petition to be resolved on its merits. It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases.[39] Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[40] As the Court stressed in a recent case:[41] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court recognized the authority of the general manager to sue on behalf of the corporation and to sign the requisite verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The general manager is also one person who is in the best position to know the state of affairs of the corporation. It was also error for the CA not to admit the requisite proof of authority when in the Novelty case, the Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the requisite documents constituted substantial compliance with procedural rules. There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure in the interest of justice.[33] While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.[34] It was, therefore, reversible error for the CA to have dismissed the petition for certiorari before it. The ordinary recourse for us to take is to remand the case to the CA for proper disposition on the merits; however, considering that the records are now before us, we deem it necessary to resolve the instant case in order to ensure harmony in the rulings and expediency. | |||||