THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITERS AWARD OF SICKNESS ALLOWANCE/WAGES WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AND/OR FACTUAL BASIS.[11] Simply put, the issues are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in treating Suganobs petition as one filed under Rule 65?; (2) Is Suganob entitled to disability benefits?; and (3) Is Suganob entitled to sickness allowance/wages? On the first issue, petitioners contend that Suganobs petition before the Court of Appeals should have been dismissed outright since he availed of the wrong remedy. They stress that in the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,[12] the Court held that decisions of the NLRC should be brought to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[13] For his part, Suganob avers that technical rules of procedure should not be strictly applied in labor cases. He argues that the Court of Appeals acted accordingly when it decided the case based on the issues raised and not through a mere technicality. Further, Suganob asserts that the kind of pleadings filed before the Court is not determined by its title but rather by its content. Petitioners contention lacks merit. The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal.Procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases as the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner.Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a party of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required.[14] Moreover, averments in the pleadings, not the title, are controlling[15] in determining the nature of the proceeding. Suganob categorized his petition before the Court of Appeals as a petition for review on certiorari (under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure). However, the contents of his petition clearly reveal that the petition filed complied with the requirements of a petition for certiorari, albeit wrongly captioned as one for a petition for review under Rule 43. Courts look beyond the form and consider substance as circumstances warrant. Thus, we rule that the Court of Appeals correctly treated Suganobs petition under Rule 43 as one being filed under Rule 65.