4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SO ORDERED."[4] Dissatisfied, petitioner now come to us and assigns the following as errors committed by the NLRC, to wit: I THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF TRUTH BECAUSE THE AFFIANT WAS NOT CROSS-EXAMINED. II THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMPLAINANTPETITIONER WAS NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. III THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NEITHER PARTY, THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT, COULD BE AWARDED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PAL TICKET. The Solicitor General, in his Comment[5] to the petition, joined the petitioner[6] in arguing that although there was a failure to allege grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC, this element of grave abuse of discretion is present in the instant petition. The assailed resolution was issued in gross violation of the settled principle that affidavits suffice as evidence in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies like the POEA.[7] We find merit in the petition. At the outset, we note that the instant petition was filed with this Court on May 22, 1991 before the ruling of this Court in the case of the St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC[8] on September 16, 1998 which required that judicial review of labor cases should be filed in the Court of Appeals before the same can be elevated to this Court following the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. The prevailing jurisprudence then holds that judicial review of labor cases by the Supreme Court may only be through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[9] Moreover, in the interest of justice, this Court had treated, in a number of cases, as special civil actions for certiorari petitions erroneously captioned as petitions for review on certiorari.[10] It is in this light that we so treat the present petition. Rules of procedure and evidence should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases in order that technicalities would not stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[11] Furthermore, while we consider this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it is likewise significant to note that petitioner failed to seasonably file a motion for reconsideration at the NLRC level before https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52120 4/12