MA. LIGAYA B. SANTOS v. LITTON MILLS INC substantial compliance with Sec.

substantial compliance with Sec. 3, Rule 46, which provides that petition for certiorari
Substantial Compliance with Rules | 22 June 2011 | J. Del Castillo
Nature of Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Digest maker: Africa
SUMMARY: Santos worked as a clerk in Litton Mills, which used to sell scrap materials. She
was terminated for allegedly extorting from a company client by withholding purchased
materials in exchange for Php2,000. Her petition for illegal dismissal was dismissed by CA
due to a deficiency in her Verification and Certification on non-forum shopping and failure
to indicate the parties’ respective addresses. Court held that her substantial compliance calls
for the relaxation of rules of procedure to secure greater interest of justice.
DOCTRINE: Rules of procedure should be relaxed when there is substantial and subsequent
compliance.
shall contain, among others, the full names addresses of the parties.
- This is further supported by Sec. 2, Rule 13 which provides that if any party has
appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them,
unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the Court.
- With respect to the Verification with Certification, the Court held that the petitioner
certified that she has not filed a similar case before any court or tribunal that she would
inform the court if she learns of a pending case similar to the ones she filed. This already
constituted substantial compliance.
- While she initially submitted an abbreviated form, she rectified the deficiency in her
motion for reconsideration.
RULING: Case remanded to CA.

FACTS:
1. Santos was hired by Litton Mills, which used to sell its used sludge oil and other waste
materials, as clerk.
2. Atty. Mario, personnel manager of Litton Mills, directed Santos to write why no
disciplinary action should be imposed upon her. He alleged that the petitioner has been
demanding money from Concepcion every time the latter purchases scrap from their
company. He further alleged that Santos threatened to withhold release of purchased
materials by denying release of official receipt and gate pass.
3. Santos averred that the Php2,000 she collected was the payment for the loan of
Concepcion’s wife. Meanwhile, a criminal complaint for robbery/extortion was filed
against her.
4. An administrative investigation was held, but Santos was terminated, hence her complaint
for illegal dismissal.
5. LA dismissed petition as there was just cause and due process was observed. Since only
substantial evidence is necessary for valid dismissal, the pendency of criminal action is a
sufficient evidence. Affirmed by NLRC despite acquittal from criminal charges.
6. Santos’ petition for certiorari was dismissed by the CA or failure to indicate the actual
addresses of the parties and to state in the Verification and Certification of non-forum
shopping that there were no other pending cases between the parties at the time of filing.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the CA erred in dismissing petition. — YES
- Rules of procedure should be relaxed when there is substantial and subsequent
compliance.
- Its as clearly mentioned in the petition that the parties may be served with notices
through their respective counsels whose addresses were clearly specified. The Court held
that the mention of the addresses of the parties’ respective counsels constitutes