This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-06-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, petitioner's failure to attach respondent's motion for reconsideration to the assailed NLRC decision is not sufficient ground for the CA to outrightly dismiss his petition. The issue that was raised in respondents' motion for reconsideration is the propriety of the NLRC's grant of overload honorarium in favor of petitioner. This particular issue was not at all raised in petitioner's petition for certiorari with the CA, therefore, there is no need for petitioner to append a copy of this motion to his petition. Besides, as already mentioned, the denial of respondents' motion for reconsideration has been assailed by respondents before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94205. At any rate, the Rules do not specify the documents which should be appended to the petition except that they should be relevant to the judgment, final order or resolution being assailed. Petitioner is thus justified in attaching the documents which he believed are sufficient to make out a prima facie case. [29] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that "subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure." [33] The Court has time and again relaxed the rigid application of the rules to offer full opportunity for parties to ventilate their causes and defenses in order to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice. [34] Because there was substantial and subsequent compliance in this case, we resolve to apply the liberal construction of the rules if only to secure the greater interest of justice. Thus, the CA should have given due course to the petition. | |||||
|
2010-03-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Second, "the Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed resolution, judgment or orders; as such, the initial determination of which pleading, document or parts of the records are relevant to the assailed order, resolution or judgment, falls upon the petitioner. The CA will ultimately determine if the supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case".[21] The CA, having given due course to the petition, must have found the documents sufficient. We find no sufficient reason to reverse the Decision of the CA. | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, petitioner's failure to manifest willingness to post a bond, in his petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order, is not a fatal defect. This omission would, at the most, only result in the denial of his application for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order, not in the dismissal of his petition for certiorari.[7] The Court of Appeals' unqualified dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner failed to manifest willingness to post a bond is clearly inappropriate. | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In view of the circumstances of this case, this Court finds our ruling in Padilla applicable. Petitioners' subsequent submission of the following documents annexed to their Motion for Reconsideration - viz, Complaint for Ejectment, Transfer Certificate of Title, Answer to the Complaint, Four Affidavits, Position Paper filed by petitioners, Memorandum on Appeal, Appellee's Memorandum, and Motion for Reconsideration - constitutes substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42. Jurisprudence pertaining to the same has established that "submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and calls for the relaxation of procedural rules."[19] There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure.[20] This ruling is in consonance with the fact that the Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records which must be annexed to the petition, apart from the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission, [7] this Court, passing on the requirement to attach relevant and pertinent pleadings and documents to the petition, held:. . . The Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. The Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed order, resolution, or judgment or orders; as such, the initial determination of which pleading, documents or parts of the records are relevant to the assailed order, resolution or judgment, falls upon the petitioner. The CA will ultimately determine if the supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case. . . [8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus, while the initial determination of what pleadings or relevant or pertinent documents should be attached to the petition lies on petitioner, the final determination thereof lies on the appellate court. | |||||
|
2006-01-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The problem presented is not novel. In fact, it is a fairly recurrent one in petitions for certiorari of NLRC decisions as it seems to be the practice of the NLRC to issue certified "xerox copies" only instead of certified "true copies."[12] We have, however, put an end to this issue in Quintano v. NLRC[13] when we declared that there is no substantial distinction between a photocopy or a "Xerox copy" and a "true copy" for as long as the photocopy is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a faithful reproduction of the original. We held therein:The submission of the duplicate original or certified true copy of judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of a petition for certiorari is essential to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered the same, indeed, committed grave abuse of discretion. The provision states that either a legible duplicate original or certified true copy thereof shall be submitted. If what is submitted is a copy, then it is required that the same is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his duly-authorized representative. The purpose for this requirement is not difficult to see. It is to assure that such copy is a faithful reproduction of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition. | |||||
|
2005-12-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As found by the Court of Appeals, petitioner failed to attach, among others, the duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, and the affidavit of service, which served as ground for the dismissal of the petition. The submission of the duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of a petition for certiorari is essential to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered the same, indeed, committed grave abuse of discretion. It is also to assure the appellate court that such copy is a faithful reproduction of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition.[19] | |||||