5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We do not approve of the CA’s ruling on the matter because, as the motion for extension should have been denied outright, it necessarily follows that the Petition for Certiorari is, in the words of petitioners, a “mere scrap of paper with no remedial value whatsoever.” In Negros Slashers, Inc. v. Teng,[34] which likewise dealt with the late filing of a petition for certiorari, we recognized that although procedural rules ought to be strictly enforced by courts in order to impart stability in the legal system, we have, nonetheless, relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure in several cases to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is because the ends of justice would be better served if the parties were given the chance to argue their causes and defenses. We are likewise constantly reminded that the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the opposing claims of the competing parties and always be guided by the principle that procedure must not hinder but, rather, promote the administration of justice. Concomitant thereto: Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity. x x x[35] Here, even assuming that the late filing of the petition would merit relaxation of the rules, the CA’s resolution would have only been acceptable had private respondent shown respect for the rules by submitting a petition for certiorari which is sufficient in form. In contrast, what private respondent filed was a petition plagued by several infirmities. Worse, when the CA allowed petitioner to cure the deficiencies, she failed to fully comply such that she had to be given, albeit undeservingly, one last chance to submit the still lacking copies of the pertinent pleadings required of her by the CA. More importantly, the CA should have dismissed the petition outright in view of the fact that the June 29, 2009 Resolution of the NLRC denying private respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration had already become final and executory as of July 18, 2009.[36] Thus, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, except to order its dismissal. In Labao, we held that: The NLRC’s resolution became final ten (10) days after counsel’s receipt, and the respondent’s failure to file the petition within the required (60)-day period rendered it impervious to any attack through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Thus, no court can exercise jurisdiction to review the resolution. Needless to stress, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56563 6/12