THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230757. March 21, 2018.]
ELLEN E. DIZON, petitioner,vs. FICCO-MAIN BRANCH, VICENTE RANA CEO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 230757 (Ellen E. Dizon, Petitioner, v. FICCO-Main Branch, Vicente Rana CEO, Respondent.) — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari on the ground of the failure of the petitioner to thereby sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in promulgating the assailed decision on October 28, 2016 holding that she had not been illegally dismissed. 1
The petitioner's insistence that the respondent's failure to submit its position paper should be fatal to its defense, and that consequently the evidence presented by the respondent on appeal should not have been considered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA in arriving at their respective decisions cannot prevail. Labor cases are decided according to justice and equity and on the basis of the substantial merits of the controversies. 2 Rules of procedure should not be strictly and rigidly applied because they are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application is to be avoided if it would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. 3 In EDI Staff Builders International, Inc. v. Magsino, 4 for instance, the Court deemed it well-advised to admit evidence introduced by the petitioner therein on appeal and to decide the case on the merits considering that the respondent therein had also been given the opportunity to rebut such evidence in the NLRC, the CA, and the Court itself. Clearly, the CA was correct in holding that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in considering the evidence presented by the respondent on appeal.
In any case, the CA was correct in ruling that even if the evidence belatedly filed by the respondent was not admitted, there was still ample basis to declare that the petitioner had not been illegally dismissed. The joint decision rendered by the investigating committee of the respondent contained a clear account of the various infractions committed by the petitioner that fully warranted the findings against her of serious misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, and willful breach of trust. On the other hand, the petitioner failed to deny the adverse findings. She actually admitted her lapses in the performance of her duties, and her failure to properly supervise her subordinate personnel.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 28, 2016, without pronouncement on cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-65; penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño and concurred in by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
2.Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Berbano, Jr., G.R. No. 165199, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 81, 91.
3.Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v. Castañeda, G.R. Nos. 169295-96, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 391, 404-405.
4. G.R. No. 139430, June 20, 2001, 359 SCRA 212.