Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IMELDA B. DAMASCO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 159674 2006-06-30	SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Damasco v. National Labor Relations Commission,[21] the non-compliance was disregarded because of the principle of social justice, which is equally applicable to the case at bar:We note that both petitioners did not comply with the rule on certification against forum shopping. The certifications in their respective petitions were executed by their lawyers, which is not correct. The certification of non-forum shopping must be by the petitioner or a principal party and not the attorney. This procedural lapse on the part of petitioners could have warranted the outright dismissal of their actions.
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Damasco vs. NLRC,[34] the certifications against forum shopping were erroneously signed by petitioners' lawyers, which, generally, would warrant the outright dismissal of their actions.[35] We resolved however that as a matter of social justice, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[36] In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile,[37] we likewise held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[38] Finally, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[39] we categorically stated that while a petition may be flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, such procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.[40]
	GR NO. 140189 2005-02-28	GREAT SOUTHERN MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION v. JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUÑA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, in Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals,[34] we held that the procedural lapse of a party's counsel in signing the certificate of non-forum shopping may be overlooked if the interests of substantial justice would thereby be served. Further, in Damasco vs. NLRC,[35] we noted that the certificate of non-forum shopping was executed by the petitioners' counsel, but nevertheless resolved the case on its merits for the reason that "technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the equity and obligations of the parties to a labor case."
	GR No. 158311 2004-11-17	HUNTINGTON STEEL PRODUCTS v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
The strict application of the Circular in the instant case, in our view, would be contrary to the goals of the Rules of Civil Procedure that is, "just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[23] Technical rules of procedure in labor cases are not to be strictly applied if the result would be detrimental to the working-man.[24] Thus, the NLRC did not err in ordering that the corrections be made at the Arbitration Branch, since the NLRC has also the power to order corrections in case of irregularities in the proceedings before it.[25]