4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Gallego's petition because he has sufficiently complied with the requirements under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In Our Resolution[23] dated October 21, 2015,[24] We took note and accepted Gallego's compliance of the lacking contents in his petition. Respondents' position on procedural lapses will not prosper. Relatedly, the procedural lapses in the CA proceedings, specifically, the failure to furnish CA court processes and notices to respondents, is highly improbable. On record, We find that correspondences to respondents from the proceedings before the labor tribunals[25] up to the filing of this petition[26] were consistently mailed to "Wallem Maritime Services, Inc., Corner Beaterio and Legaspi Streets, Intramuros, 1002, Manila." Respondents participated in the proceedings before the labor tribunals and filed their Comment[27] to this petition indicating the same foregoing address. Notably, respondents were able to file their motion for reconsideration to the Decision dated September 27, 2006 of the CA. If indeed no CA order or notice were sent to respondents, then they would not have been able to file their motion for reconsideration and seek the reversal of the Decision of the CA. Moreover, the foregoing only shows that jurisdiction over the persons of respondents was acquired by the CA. Therefore, the CA acted accordingly in giving due course to Gallego's Petition. Respondents strongly reiterate that Gallego failed to comply with the rules in filing a petition for certiorari with the CA. The docket fees were not paid in full at the time of the filing of the petition, Gallego's original petition did not contain a certification of nonforum shopping, and the Supplemental Petition was filed out of time and is a prohibited pleading. Considering these procedural errors, the Decision of the CA should not be upheld. We do not agree. As discussed, procedural rules may be relaxed in the exercise of the court's equity jurisdiction for the most persuasive of reasons and where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition.[28] In this case, the CA exercised its discretion to relax the application of the rules especially upon finding that Gallego is illegally dismissed from employment. Respondents argue that there was valid termination of Gallego's employment due to the sale of the ship, M/V Eastern Falcon. Indeed, under Section 23 of the POEA-SEC, an employer may terminate a seafarer's contract due to sale of ship, lay-up or discontinuance of voyage. For such termination to be valid, the same provision states that the seafarer shall immediately be paid his earned wages, repatriation costs and one-month basic pay as termination pay, unless arrangements have been made for the seafarer to join another ship belonging to the same principal to complete his contract, and in the latter case, the seafarer shall be entitled to his basic wages until the date of joining the other ship.[29] Applying the foregoing provision and labor principles, respondents have the burden of proving the observance of due process and compliance to Section 23 of the POEA-SEC to consider the dismissal of Gallego valid. Respondents failed to observe the foregoing rules. We did not find any proof that Gallego was notified of the sale of the ship, M/V Eastern Falcon. If it were true that respondents had informed Gallego in August 2000 that his employment was terminated https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66264 4/8