This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the procedural issue, We hold that while the general rule is that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners in a case, the signature of only one of them, petitioner Basan in this case, appearing thereon may be deemed substantial compliance with the procedural requirement. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the rule on verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.[16] Similarly, this Court has consistently held that when under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, as in this case, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the certification requirement.[17] Thus, the fact that the petition was signed only by petitioner Basan does not necessarily result in its outright dismissal for it is more in accord with substantial justice to overlook petitioners' procedural lapses.[18] Indeed, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the demand of justice.[19] | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[T]he requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional and x x x the non-compliance of which 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."[47] With respect to the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping, "[t]he fact that the [Rules] require strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances."[48] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Even assuming that the verification in the appeal filed by PNCC is defective, it is well settled that rules of procedure in labor cases maybe relaxed. As provided in Article 221 of the Labor Code, as amended, "rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process." Moreover, the requirement of verification is merely formal and not jurisdictional. As held in Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc.[31]: As to the defective verification in the appeal memorandum before the NLRC, the same liberality applies. After all, the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which 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. The court or tribunal may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.[32] | |||||
|
2013-03-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Since no moral damages can be granted under the facts of the case, exemplary damages cannot also be awarded.[50] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| If there is no evidence to show that the dismissal of an employee had been carried out arbitrarily, capriciously and maliciously and with personal ill-will, moral damages cannot be awarded.[40] If moral damages cannot be awarded, the consequence is that there can also be no award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees.[41] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Respecting the lack of verification, Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc.[12] instructs: As to the defective verification in the appeal memorandum before the NLRC, the same liberality applies. After all, the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which 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. The court or tribunal may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served. (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Our pronouncement in Pacquing v. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc.[31] is instructive. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| 5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;[31] otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.[32] | |||||