11 2.11. All the foregoing was, or will be, accorded to the respondents once the public hearings commence. 2.11.1. More particularly, the respondents were duly notified of the proceedings, furnishing them a copy of the Petition, and giving them the opportunity to respond -- as some did mostly through their respective counsels -- with their version of facts, applicable laws, and evidence. 2.11.2. Furthermore, the Honorable Commission expressed its investigative mandate during its press conference held on 08 December 2016. The recorded video of the event is available on BHRRC’s website.25 2.12. Thus, respondents’ heavy reliance on the application of technical rules of procedure -- particularly on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Palileo, et al. v. Planters Development Bank,26 which found that service and filing of pleadings by courier is improper -- is misplaced. 2.12.1. In Palileo, the case refers to a judicial proceeding, a complaint for specific performance and/or sum of money and damages with prayer for the issuance of writs of preliminary attachment and preliminary injunction, not an investigation, such as this case. Strict adherence to the rules of procedure in a judicial proceeding is, generally, observed given that the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated and the court may award damages or specific reliefs. 2.12.2. The Supreme Court’s strict application of the rules in the particular case of Palileo is not without a valid reason. The pleading that was filed and served through private courier in said case is a critical document -- an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial -- which will establish and direct the fate of the parties therein, particularly petitioners Palileo, et al. 2.12.3. Finally, in Palileo, both filing to the court and service to the lone opposing party (Planters Development Bank) were made through a courier. In the present case, the Petition was filed personally to the Honorable Commission -- a recognized mode of filing under the Omnibus Rules of the Commission -- though service of the copies thereof to fortyseven (47) respondents was made through courier. Indeed, the 25 BHRRC’s website, available at https://business-humanrights.org/en/philippines-commission-on-humanrights-announces-public-hearings-of-fossil-fuels-firms-over-climate-human-rights-impacts, last accessed on 08 February 2017. 26 G.R. No. 193650, 08 October 2014.