Anent the issue of verification, we have scrutinized both the Position Paper and the Manifestation/Compliance filed by Bastol and we fail to see any violation thereof. First, there is no law or rule requiring verification for the Manifestation/Compliance. Second, the counsel’s verification in Bastol’s Position Paper substantially complies with the rule on verification. The second paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides: “A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.”   On the other hand, the actual verification of counsel in Bastol’s Position Paper states: “That I am the counsel of record for the complainant in the aboveentitled case; that I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper; that I have read and understood the contents thereof; and that I confirm that all the allegations therein contained are true and correct based on recorded evidence.”49[49] Appended to the position paper were Bastol’s contract of employment, counsel’s letter to OSCI, and various medical certifications issued by several doctors with similar findings and diagnosis of Bastol’s heart ailment. Evidently, the verification is proper as based on, and evidenced, by the appended documents, which were not disputed save the contents of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vicaldo.   First Substantive Issue: Res Judicata and “Law of the Case” 49[49] Id. at 42.