Scribd
Upload
238 views1 page

Fulgencio Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to technicalities in procedural rules should not impede substantial justice. The petitioners failed to include required dates and explanations in their petition to the Court of Appeals as required by the Rules of Court, resulting in dismissal. However, the Supreme Court found that overlooking these technical lapses in favor of reviewing the case on appeal would better serve the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on a technicality, which could cause grave injustice.

Uploaded by

Mr Gawis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
238 views1 page

Fulgencio Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to technicalities in procedural rules should not impede substantial justice. The petitioners failed to include required dates and explanations in their petition to the Court of Appeals as required by the Rules of Court, resulting in dismissal. However, the Supreme Court found that overlooking these technical lapses in favor of reviewing the case on appeal would better serve the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on a technicality, which could cause grave injustice.

Uploaded by

Mr Gawis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CD 28 LAW OF THE CASE

FULGENCIO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


G.R. No. 141600 September 12, 2003

Facts:
Petitioners failed to indicate in their petition with the CA the dates showing when they received
notice of the NLRC’s June 16, 1998 Decision, and the date when they filed a motion for
reconsideration therefrom, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended. Petitioners also failed to include in their petition the required explanation under Section 11,
Rule 13 of the same Rules as to why personal service upon the respondents was not resorted to; hence,
the dismissal thereof by the CA.

Issue:
Whether or not strict adherence to technicalities in the application of the provisions of the
Rules of Court impede the cause of justice.
Ruling:
Rules of procedure applied in a very rigid, technical sense override substantial justice. It is a
far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse the parties a
review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality
and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while
actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.

You might also like