Preview only show first 10 pages with watermark. For full document please download

Ligaya Santos Vs Litton Mills Inc | Government | Politics





  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$erred that the P',((((( she obtained from +oncepcion was in payment for the loan she had extended to +oncepcion-s wife. and, that her practice of lending money to increase her income cannot be considered as an irregularity against her employerMeanwhile, a criminal complaint for robbery/extortion was lodged before the +ity Prosecutor of Pasig +ity against petitioner  dministrati$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 $iolation of the company-s +ode of +onduct for mployee Discipline2 &n 3ebruary 4, '((, petitioner filed a +omplaint 6 for illegal dismissal against respondentsL and 7L+ ruled against her, ruling that the pendency of the criminal case for extortion is an indication that there is sufficient e$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