Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HAVTOR MANAGEMENT PHILS. v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[86] and General Milling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[87] involved petitions that were dismissed for failure to attach any document showing that the signatory on the verification and certification against forum-shopping was authorized.[88] In both cases, the secretary's certificate was attached to the motion for reconsideration.[89] This court considered the subsequent submission of proof indicating authority to sign as substantial compliance.[90]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[86] and General Milling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[87] involved petitions that were dismissed for failure to attach any document showing that the signatory on the verification and certification against forum-shopping was authorized.[88] In both cases, the secretary's certificate was attached to the motion for reconsideration.[89] This court considered the subsequent submission of proof indicating authority to sign as substantial compliance.[90]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Havtor Management Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[86] and General Milling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission[87] involved petitions that were dismissed for failure to attach any document showing that the signatory on the verification and certification against forum-shopping was authorized.[88] In both cases, the secretary's certificate was attached to the motion for reconsideration.[89] This court considered the subsequent submission of proof indicating authority to sign as substantial compliance.[90]
	GR NOS. 169295-96 2006-11-20	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. ERLINDA CASTANEDA PUNO, J.
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.[15] Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[16] Rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.[17] Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[18]
	GR NO. 160798 2005-06-08	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES 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]
	GR No. 129577-80 2000-02-15	PEOPLE v. BULU CHOWDURY PUNO, J.
They were likewise charged with three counts of estafa committed against private complainants.[2] The State Prosecutor, however, later dismissed the estafa charges against Chowdury[3] and filed an amended information indicting only Ong for the offense.[4]