Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital & Colleges, Inc.

CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ vs. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC. G.R. G.R. No. No. 1874 187417 17 Februar ebruary y 24, 24, 2016 2016 Ponente: REYES, J. REYES, J. FACTS:

Chrit Chritine ine !oy Ca"i# Ca"i# $a the %u&an %u&an Reour eour'e 'e ()'er ()'er o* re+o re+on"e n"ent nt ren rentt %o+ %o+it itaa- an" Co-Co--e ee e,, /n'. /n'.  rrent ent at the the ti&e ti&e o* her her in"e in"en nit ite e u+enion *ro& e&+-oy&ent in 2006. 3he 'aue o* u+enion $a Ca"i# 5n+ro*eiona-i& an" 5nethi'a- ehaior Reu-tin to 5n$e" Prenan'y. /t a++ear that Ca"i# be'a&e +renant out o* $e"-o', an" rent i&+oe" the u+enion unti- u'h ti&e that he &arrie her boy*rien" in a''or"an'e $ith -a$. Ca"i# then -e" $ith the abor 9rbiter 9 a 'o&+-aint *or 5n*air abor Pra'ti'e, Contru'tie i&ia-, Non;Pay&ent o* ut 'aue *or her "i&ia-, that i, he enae" in +re&arita- e?ua- re-ation $ith her boy*rien" reu-tin in a +renan'y out o* $e"-o'. 3he 9 "ee&e" ai" a't to be i&&ora-, $hi'h $a +unihab-e by "i&ia- un"er rent ru-e an" $hi'h -ie$ie 'ontitute" eriou &i'on"u't un"er 9rti'-e 282a o* the abor Co"e. Ca"i# a++ea-e" to the Nationa- abor Re-ation Co&&iion NRC, $hi'h a)r&e" the 9 "e'iion in it Reo-ution "ate" e'e&ber 10, 2007. %er &otion *or re'oni"eration hain been "enie" by the NRC. She She e-e e-eat ate" e" the the 'ae 'ae to the the Cour Courtt o* 9+ 9++e +eaa-. . 3he 3he C9, C9, ho$e ho$ee er, r, "i&ie" her +etition outriht "ue to te'hni'a- "e*e't in the +etition: 1 in'o in'o&+ &+-e -ete te tat tate& e&en entt o* &ate &ateri riaa- "ate "ate== 2 2 *ai*ai-ur ure e to atta atta'h 'h rei eitr try y re'ei+t= an" @ *ai-ure to in"i'ate the +-a'e o* iue o* 'oune- P3R an" /P /P o)'i o)'iaa- re'ei e'ei+t +t. . Ca"i Ca"i# # ou ouht ht re'on e'oni i"e "era rati tion on but but it $a "eni "enie" e".. (Howev (However er,, when when it comes comes to these these techni technical cal defect defects, s, the Supre Supreme me Court  Court  ruled “that despite these defects, the Court nds that the ends of substantial  justice would be better served by relain! the application of technical rules of procedure". #hese are mere tools to epedite the decision or resolution of  cases and if their strict and ri!id application would frustrate rather than  promote substantial justice, justice, then it must be avoided$. %en'e, the +reent +etition be*ore the Su+re&e Su+ re&e Court. ISSUES:

1.