Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAIME H. BALLAO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174084 2010-08-25	SPIC N' SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION v. GLORIA PAJE BRION, J.
As we previously explained in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation,[15] where only two of the 25 real parties-in-interest signed the verification, the verification by the two could be sufficient assurance that the allegations in the petition were made in good faith, are true and correct, and are not speculative. The lack of a verification in a pleading is only a formal defect, not a jurisdictional defect, and is not necessarily fatal to a case.[16] The primary reason for requiring a verification is simply to ensure that the allegations in the pleading are done in good faith, are true and correct, and are not mere speculations.[17]
	GR No. 174981 2009-05-25	TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTORS SPECIALIST v. RAYMUND GARRIEL CORONA, J.
(a) the loss of confidence must not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are illegal, improper or unjustified; (c) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in bad faith and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence.[27] DUE PROCESS WAS NOT VIOLATED
	GR No. 160240 2008-10-29	WOODRIDGE SCHOOL v. JOANNE C. PE BENITO NACHURA, J.
Time and again, we have said that the lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. In a proper case, the court may order the correction of the pleading, or act on the unverified pleading, if the attending circumstances are such that the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice. It should be stressed that rules of procedure were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice.[25] Verification is mainly intended to secure the assurance that the allegations in the petition are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere speculation.[26]
	GR No. 166802 2008-07-04	SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ v. SPS. ROGELIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On the matter of defective verification, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court states that a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. This Court has consistently held that this requirement is formal, not jurisdictional.[38] It is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[39] Thus, the appellate court could have simply ordered the correction of the pleading or act on the unverified pleading, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice.[40] Besides, there appears to be no intention to circumvent the need for proper verification since Spouses Gutierrez submitted an amended verification in their Motion for Reconsideration.
	GR NOS. 149158-59 2007-07-24	KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. CA NACHURA, J.
Further, in rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat vis-a-vis substantive rights, and not the other way around. This principle finds greater application in labor cases where social justice should be emphasized.[45]