This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-06-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this case, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition without first examining its merits. The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, this Court may reverse the dismissal of appeals that are grounded merely on technicalities.[33] | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases.[15] Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[16] Rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.[17] Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[18] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It would be more in accord with substantial justice and equity to overlook the procedural lapse, and allow the petition to be resolved on its merits. It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases.[39] Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[40] As the Court stressed in a recent case:[41] | |||||
|
2002-08-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The second issue is whether private respondent Lagrama was illegally dismissed. To begin, the employer has the burden of proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal.[28] The validity of the charge must be clearly established in a manner consistent | |||||