6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Here, the records show that [respondent] had no intent to delay, or prolong the proceedings before the NLRC. In fact, the NLRC, in its Resolution dated November 11, 2008 took note that [respondent] belatedly filed her verification and certification on non-forum shopping. Such belated filing should be considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of the law for perfecting her appeal to the NLRC. Moreover, the appeal fee was eventually paid on July 17, 2006. Clearly, [respondent] had demonstrated willingness to comply with the requirements set by the rules. Besides, in its earlier Decision dated May 22, 2008, the First Division of the NLRC brushed aside these technicalities and gave due course to [respondent's] appeal. Verily, We deem it prudent to give a liberal interpretation of the technical rules on appeal, talcing into account the merits of [respondent's] case. After all, technical rules of procedure in labor cases are not to be strictly applied in order to serve the demands of substantial justice.[27] (Citations omitted.) The appellate court then held that respondent was dismissed from employment without just cause and without procedural due process and that petitioners and SAENCO were solidarity liable to pay respondent her unpaid salaries for one year and attorney's fees: Time and again, it has been ruled that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests with the employer. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal was for just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and, therefore, was illegal. In Royal Crown Internationale vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Nacionales, the Supreme Court held that where termination cases involve a Filipino worker recruited and deployed for overseas employment, the burden to show the validity of the dismissal naturally devolves upon both the foreign-based employer and the employment agency or recruitment entity which recruited the worker, for the latter is not only the agent of the former, but is also solidarity liable with its foreign principal for any claims or liabilities arising from the dismissal of the worker. In the case at bar, [petitioners] failed to discharge the burden of proving that [respondent] was terminated from employment for a just and valid cause. [Petitioners'] claim that [respondent] was deported because her employment contract has already expired, was without any basis. Before being deployed to South Korea, [petitioners] made [respondent] believe that her contract of employment was for one (1) year. [Respondent] relied on such misrepresentation and continuously worked from September 11, 2003 up [to] June 24, 2004 or for more than nine (9) months. [Petitioners] never questioned her stay beyond the six-month period. If [petitioners] were really against her overstaying in Korea, they could have easily asked their principal, [SAENCO], to facilitate her immediate deportation. Even when [petitioner] Moldes sent the demand letter to [respondent] in May 2004 or when she came to Korea to pay the salaries of the performers in June 2004, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64155 11/27