6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On her claim for the payment of her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract, We agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the same lacks merit considering that she was able to finish her six (6) month employment contract.[23] Consequently, the NLRC granted the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated May 4, 2006 dismissing respondent's complaint against petitioners and SAENCO.[24] In a subsequent Resolution dated January 30, 2009, the NLRC denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration[25] as it raised no new matters of substance which would warrant reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution dated November 11, 2008. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Respondent sought remedy from the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari, [26] alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in reinstating the Labor Arbiter's Decision. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated November 27, 2009, took a liberal approach by excusing the technical lapses of respondent's appeal before the NLRC for the sake of substantial justice: The requisites for perfecting an appeal before the NLRC are laid down in Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Section 4 of the said Rule requires that the appeal shall be verified by the appellant, accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping and with proof of payment of appeal fee. As a general rule, these requirements are mandatory and non-compliance therewith would render the appealed judgment final and executory. Be that as it may, jurisprudence is replete that courts have adopted a relaxed and liberal interpretation of the rules on perfection of appeal so as to give way to the more prudent policy of deciding cases on their merits and not on technicality, especially if there was substantial compliance with the rules. In the case of Manila Downtown YMCA vs. Remington Steel Corp., the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with [the] verification does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, hence, the court may order its correction if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby served. Moreover, in Roadway Express, Inc. vs. CA, the High Court allowed the filing of the certification against forum shopping fourteen (14) days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. LandBank, the petition was reinstated on the ground of substantial compliance even though the verification and certification were submitted only after the petition had already been originally dismissed. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 10/27