Scribd
Upload
63 views1 page

LABOR SantosVLittonMills

Santos, an employee of Litton Mills, was accused of having an unauthorized arrangement with a buyer of the company's waste materials and threatening one buyer. She was dismissed and filed a case. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for failing to include addresses of parties and stating in verification that no other cases were pending, but she averred substantial compliance and later submitted a revised verification. The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals was incorrect to dismiss based on non-compliance because subsequent and substantial compliance can relax procedural rules in the interest of justice, which occurred in this case.

Uploaded by

alphonso floro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views1 page

LABOR SantosVLittonMills

Santos, an employee of Litton Mills, was accused of having an unauthorized arrangement with a buyer of the company's waste materials and threatening one buyer. She was dismissed and filed a case. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for failing to include addresses of parties and stating in verification that no other cases were pending, but she averred substantial compliance and later submitted a revised verification. The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals was incorrect to dismiss based on non-compliance because subsequent and substantial compliance can relax procedural rules in the interest of justice, which occurred in this case.

Uploaded by

alphonso floro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ma. Ligaya B. Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated and/or Atty. Rodolfo Marino, GR No.

170646, 22 June
2011, FIRST DIVISION, Del Castillo

Parties:
Petitioner – Ligaya Santos
Respondents – Litton Mills Incorporated and Atty. Rodolfo Marino

Santos, an employee of Litton Mills, was accused for having an unauthorized arrangement with a buyer of Litton
Mills’ waste materials. Apparently, Santos threatened one of the buyers with withholding the waste materials if she
did not get her money from the buyer. A criminal case was also lodged against her for extortion. Santos alleged that
it was for a loan that she gave to one of the buyers which she claims is not prejudicial to the employer.

Santos was subsequently dismissed and her case was filed to the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. When it reached the
CA, the latter dismissed it for Santos’ failure to indicate in the petition the actual addresses of the parties and to state
in the verification and certification of non-fourm shopping that there were no other pending cases between the
parties at the time of filing. Santos however avers that she substantially complied and even submitted a revised
verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

Was the CA correct in dismissing her petition for non-compliance of the form of the verification/certification of non-
forum shopping?

The CA was incorrect. It is settled that “subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the
rules of procedure.” 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.
Because there was substantial and subsequent compliance in this case, the liberal construction of the rules if only to
secure the greater interest of justice should be done.

You might also like