This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the NLRC properly took cognizance of the appeal of all the named complainants even though it was signed by only one of them. While the right to appeal is a statutory and not a natural right, it is nonetheless an essential part of our judicial system. Courts are, therefore, advised to proceed with caution, so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. Litigants should have the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of their cause - free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities.[33] Thus, contrary to respondents' claim, the decision had not attained finality even as to those who did not sign the appeal memorandum. | |||||
|
2008-10-29 |
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] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| [V]erification is a formal, not a jurisdictional requisite, as it is mainly intended to secure an assurance that the allegations therein made are done in good faith or are true and correct and not mere speculation. The Court may order the correction of the pleading, if not verified, or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that a strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served.[24] | |||||