Transcript
Ligaya Santos vs Litton Mills Inc. & Atty. MarinoFacts: Petitioner was hired on December 5, 1989 by respondent Litton Mills, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing textile materials !t used to sell its used sludge oil and other waste materials through its Plant dministration and #er$ices Department, wherein petitioner was assigned as cler%&n #eptember '8, '((', respondent tty Mari)o, personnel manager of respondent Litton Mills, directed petitioner to explain why no disciplinary action should be imposed on her after ha$ing been caught engaging in an unauthori*ed arrangement with a waste buyer llegedly, petitioner has been demanding money from a certain Leonardo +oncepcion e$ery time he purchases scrap and sludge oil from the company and threatening to withhold the release of the purchased materials by delaying the release of official deli$ery receipt and gate pass if he would not oblige Petitioner denied the accusation and explained that her ob is merely clerical in nature and that she has no authority to hold the release of purchased waste items Petitioner a$erred that the P',((((( she obtained from +oncepcion was in payment for the loan she had extended to +oncepcion-s wife. and, that her practice of lending money to increase her income cannot be considered as an irregularity against her employerMeanwhile, a criminal complaint for robbery/extortion was lodged before the +ity Prosecutor of Pasig +ity against petitioner dministrati$e in$estigation commenced, petitioner presented a copy of her handwritten notes showing a list of entries representing the debts owed to her by different debtors including +oncepcion-s wife &n &ctober 11, '((', petitioner was terminated 0for obtaining or accepting money as a result of an unauthori*ed arrangement with a waste buyer, an act considered as affecting company interests, in $iolation of the company-s +ode of +onduct for mployee Discipline2 &n 3ebruary 4, '((, petitioner filed a +omplaint 6 for illegal dismissal against respondentsL and 7L+ ruled against her, ruling that the pendency of the criminal case for extortion is an indication that there is sufficient e$idence that petitioner is responsible for the offense charged, and that only substantial e$idence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary for a $alid dismissal he L was not con$inced that the money which petitioner recei$ed from +oncepcion was intended as payment for a loan and e$en if it was, it is still unauthori*ed and prohibited by the company rules+ simply dismissed the petition for failure of the petitioner to indicate the actual addresses of the parties and to state in the :erification and +ertification of non;forum shopping that there were no other pending cases between the parties at the time of filing Issue: <o7 + -s dismissal of her case was proper Held: 7o ules of procedure should be relaxed when there is substantial and subse=uent compliance !nthe petition for certiorari filed before the + , petitioner indeed failed to indicate the actual addresses of theparties >owe$er, she clearly mentioned that the parties may be ser$ed with the +ourt-s notices or processes through their respecti$e counsels whose addresses were clearly specified <ith regard to the certification of nf;shopping, it re$eals that petitioner nonetheless certified therein that she has not filed a similar case before any other court or tribunal and that she would inform the court if she learns of a pending case similar to the one she had filed therein his is more than substantial compliance with the re=uirements of the ules ?esides, in her M, petitioner rectified the deficiency echnical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, the cause of ustice
