4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly because the company assured him many times of rehiring so Gallego has not decided to assert his right at that time. The CA considered that the issues had not yet been joined. Since the cause of action accrued only in February 2003, the filing of the labor complaint on July 1, 2004 had not prescribed and finding that Gallego was dismissed from employment before the end of his contract on December 10, 2000, the CA ordered payment of the unexpired portion of the contract equivalent to four months and six days. The CA awarded moral and exemplary damages in the amount of US$2,000.00 and US$5,000.00, respectively, since respondents acted with bad faith and wanton disregard of Gallego's rights to security of tenure and to due process.[14] Unsatisfied with the foregoing decision, respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration.[15] In an Amended Decision[16] dated February 28,2011, the CA dismissed the petition filed by Gallego. The Decision dated September 27, 2006 of the CA was declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of respondents. There was no proof of service on the respondents of any order or resolution from the CA ordering the respondents to file comment to the petition. There was also no proof that respondents filed a motion or any pleading seeking an affirmative relief before the case was submitted for resolution by the CA. Further, the CA issued a Resolution ordering Gallego to correct the formal defects of his petition and to secure the services of a counsel.[17] Rather than correcting the formal defects, Gallego filed an Extremely Urgent Manifestation and Motion to file a Supplemental Petition. Since the CA did not act upon the Supplemental Petition,[18] the same was expunged from the record. The CA acted on his original petition. The CA found it defective and eventually dismissed Gallego's original petition for failure to prosecute. Gallego filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.[19] He argues that the CA acted capriciously in holding that there was lack of jurisdiction over respondents for failure of the CA to furnish the latter court processes and notices. Such failure to notify respondents of the proceedings and pleadings to be filed was not his doing. Therefore, he cannot be held accountable for such fault. The CA applied technical and procedural rules rigidly at the expense of dispensing justice. Further, it was erroneous for the CA to hold that Gallego failed to prosecute his case. It was by his own earnest efforts that he initially filed the Petition for Certiorari even without the assistance of a legal counsel, and a decision was rendered by the CA on his Supplemental Petition. Respondents emphasize the procedural lapses in Gallego's Petition for Certiorari. They also argue that the instant petition lacked procedural requirements under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, particularly, lack of a legible certified true copy of the assailed decision, lack of a duly executed verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, and lack of an affidavit of service.[20] The Court's Ruling Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed because they are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases.[21] Court procedure should be strictly followed. They may be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons, especially, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[22] Here, We find no reason to dismiss https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66264 3/8