This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they have a justifiable cause for their inability to obtain the signatures of the other petitioners as they could no longer be contacted or are no longer interested in pursuing the case.[18] Petitioners plead substantial compliance, citing Huntington Steel Products, Inc., et al. v. NLRC[19] which held, among other things, that while the rule is mandatory in nature, substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances is enough. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In sum, we find sufficient justification to rule - under the circumstances of this case - that the CA committed a reversible error when it dismissed the petition for failure to strictly follow the verification requirements. Stated otherwise, we do not consider the variance between the dates as fatal to the petitioners' case because the variance did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made, or that the verification was false. More importantly, the variance totally lost significance after the petitioners sent from the US and submitted to the CA the required Verification/Certification in compliance with their previously manifested intent. As this Court noted in a case where compliance with a certificate of non-forum shopping was at issue, the fact that the Rules require strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature; it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances, as we find in this case.[29] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in giving Article 223[21] of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[22] We have held in a catena of cases that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman.[23] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We have reviewed the records, however, and find that a strict application of Rule 42, in relation to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court is not called for. As we held in Huntington Steel Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[19] while the requirement of strict compliance underscores the mandatory nature of the rule, it does not necessarily interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances. The rule should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure, that is, to achieve justice as expeditiously as possible. A liberal application of the rule may be justified where special circumstances or compelling reasons are present.[20] | |||||