Case Digest: DEE HWA LIONG ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (DEECO), et al. v. EMELINDA PAPIONA

DEE HWA LIONG ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (DEECO), et al.
v. EMELINDA PAPIONA

536 SCRA 482 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

Emelinda Papiona (Papiona) was employed as a sales clerk by petitioner Dee Hwa Liong Electronics Corporation (DEECO) of which its Janet Dee (Dee) is a co-owner. On February 22, 2003, Papiona had a heated altercation with petitioner Dee in the presence of employees and store customers. Papiona immediately went home as, by her claim, she feared for her life. Two days later, Papiona filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal DEECO in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Papiona‗s complaint but awarded backwages to her.

DEECO appealed the decision arguing that since both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that there was no illegal dismissal, Papiona should not be entitled to separation pay. By Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari because DEECO‘s counsel failed to sign the petition and include a verification in the pleadings which violated 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. DEECO appealed the ruling contending that Article 279 of the Labor Code warrants liberal application of the Rules of Court as an instrument of justice.

ISSUES:

Whether or not, the Rules of Court warrants a liberal construction in the filing of a petition for review in dismissal cases founded on Article 279

HELD:

DEECO have, neither invoked such liberality nor offered any reason for its failure to comply with the Rules of Court – whether in their present Petition for Review on Certiorari or in their Reply. The general rule must thus stand; to rule otherwise would be to countenance DEECO‘s glaring disregard of the Rules. Concomitant to a liberal application of the Rules, however, the party invoking it should at least proffer a reason behind its failure to comply therewith, an exceptionally meritorious one to warrant liberality.

While Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides for a liberal construction of the rules in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, the same cannot be used as a vehicle to ignore the Rules at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution.