FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari. The complaint stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to pay the petitioner for salary, a salary differential, and attorney's fees. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration but it was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner's failure to attach copies of all relevant pleadings and documents. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was also denied. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on pure technicality.

2. Whether petitioner complied with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULING:

1. The petition is granted. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on pure technicality. The Court held that petitioner substantially complied with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, despite initially failing to attach copies of relevant pleadings and documents. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate and promote the administration of justice, and the focus should be on determining cases on their merits rather than on technicalities.

PRINCIPLES:

• Procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. The strict and rigid application of procedural rules that result in technicalities frustrating substantial justice must be avoided.

• Cases should be determined on their merits, with all parties given the opportunity to present their causes and defenses, rather than being decided based on technicalities or procedural imperfections.

• The rules of procedure should be viewed as tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict application, which may lead to technicalities, should be eschewed.