jurisprudence[16] and the basics of procedure[17] provide that when a party has appeared through counsel, service is to be made upon the latter, unless the court specifically orders that it be upon the party. We also note that from the inception of the case at the LAs office, all pleadings addressed to private respondent had always been sent to his counsel, Atty. Danilo G. Macalino. Note that private respondent, who was employed as a seaman, was often out of his home. The service of pleadings and other court processes upon him personally would have been futile, as he would not have been around to receive them. This Court has repeatedly held that while courts should meticulously observe the Rules, they should not be overly strict about procedural lapses that do not impair the proper administration of justice.[18] Rather, procedural rules should be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. [19] Substantive Issue: Liability of Petitioner for Unpaid Salaries It is worthwhile to note that what is involved in this case is the recovery of unpaid salaries and other monetary benefits. The Court is mindful of the plight of private respondent and, indeed, of workers in general who are seeking to recover wages that are being unlawfully withheld from them. Such recovery should not be needlessly delayed at the expense of their survival. This case is now on its ninth year since its inception at the LAs office. Its remand to the CA will only unduly delay its disposition. In the interest of substantial justice,[20] this Court will decide the case on the merits based upon the records of the case, particularly those relating to the OSM Shipping Philippines Petition before the CA. On behalf of its principal, PC-SASCO, petitioner does not deny hiring Private Respondent Guerrero as master mariner. However, it argues that since he was not deployed overseas, his employment contract became ineffective, because its object was allegedly absent. Petitioner contends that using the vessel in coastwise trade and subsequently chartering it to another principal had the effect of novating the employment contract. We are not persuaded. As approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), petitioner was the legitimate manning agent of PC-SASCO.[21] As such, it was allowed to select, recruit, hire and deploy seamen on board the vessel M/V Princess Hoa, which was managed by its principal, PC-SASCO.[22] It was in this capacity that petitioner hired private respondent as master mariner. They then executed and agreed upon an employment contract. An employment contract, like any other contract, is perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon its terms; and (2) concur in the essential elements thereof: (a) consent of the contracting parties, (b) object certain which is the subject matter of