Dear Atty. Kathy,

I filed a Position Paper in the NLRC for our Company, because there was no settlement with the complainant, a former employee. Unfortunately, we lost the case because our Position Paper was not even considered based only on the reason that we did not attach the board resolution/secretary's certificate for the authorized signatory of the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, due to some inadvertent delays. Is this correct? Can we still appeal the decision?

Alana

Dear Alana,

The Supreme Court has ruled that strict application of technical rules should be set aside to serve the broader interest of substantial justice.

Indeed, the verification and the attachment of a certificate of non-forum shopping are requirements that — as pointed out by the Supreme Court, time and again — are basic, necessary and mandatory for procedural orderliness. However, the Supreme Court has relaxed this rule in cases where, there is a sufficient and justifiable ground that compels a liberal application of the rule. Simply stated, the application of the Rules may be relaxed when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and substantial justice.

As to the verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

With regard to the certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."