This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioners then proceeded to describe the work they render for the company. Collectively, they claim that they work as assistants in the production of the Cebuano news program broadcast daily over ABS-CBN Channel 3, as follows: Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad as production assistants to drive the news team; Ponce and Almendras, to shoot scenes and events with the use of cameras owned by ABS-CBN; Malig-on Bigno, as studio production assistant and assistant editor/teleprompter operator; and Cabas, Jr., as production assistant for video editing and operating the VTR machine recorder. As production assistants, the petitioners submit that they are rank-and-file employees (citing in support of their position the Court's ruling in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno[23]) who are entitled to salary increases and other benefits under the CBA. Relying on the Court's ruling in New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, Inc. v. NLRC,[24] they posit that to exclude them from the CBA "would constitute undue discrimination and would deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to." | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| It must be stressed at this juncture that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice should not be allowed; technicality should not be permitted to prevent the equitable and complete resolution of the rights and obligations of the parties.[10] No procedural rule is sacrosanct if such shall result in subverting justice.[11] The Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.[12] Thus, in New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. v. NLRC,[13] as in other meritorious cases, the Court allowed, in the higher interest of justice, an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC which was several months late. | |||||