M AND M PLACEMENT INTERNATIONAL, PETITIONER, VS. DATUKAMID N. DATUKAKA AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), RESPONDENTS.
PEREZ, J.:
In a Minute Resolution dated 12 February 2013,[3] We directed the petitioner to rectify the defects in the petition and to cause the appearance of its counsel within five (5) days from receipt of notice. Petitioner failed to comply with this Court’s directive.
In another Minute Resolution dated 25 June 2013,[4] We again resolved, among others, to direct petitioner to submit for the last time clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Resolution dated 29 November 2012 within five (5) days from notice. Said directive also went unheeded.
Despite the 12 February 2013 and 25 June 2013 directives, no compliance was made by the petitioner which prompted this Court to issue another Minute Resolution on 4 February 2014[5] directing petitioner to show cause why the instant case should not be dismissed. Records show that petitioner failed to act on said resolution and also failed to comply with this Court’s order for it to furnish this Court of the correct and complete address of private respondent.[6]
Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.[7] Failure to follow procedural rules merits the dismissal of the case, especially when the rules themselves expressly say so, as in this case.[8]
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Camello, and Inting, concur.
[1] Rollo, pp 2-13.
[2] Rollo, pp 14-16.
[3] Rollo, p 37.0
[4] Rollo, p 48.
[5] Rollo, p 49.
[6] Per CMIS Verification dated January 5, 2015, attached at the front portion of the Rollo.
[7] Philippine Basketball Association v. Hon. Manuel B. Gaite, G.R. No. 170312.
[8] Indoyon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 193706, March 12, 2013.