This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Unless substantial justice dictates that procedural rules be relaxed to arrive at a just disposition of a case, there shall be no liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules.[23] | |||||
|
2014-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The rules were instituted to be faithfully complied with,[38] and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of a party like the petitioner was impermissible.[39] Such rules, often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Their liberal construction in exceptional situations should then rest on a showing of justifiable reasons and of at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them.[40] We have repeatedly emphasized this standard. In Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, (4th Division),[41] for instance, we declared: The petitioners' plea for the application of the principles of substantial justice in their favor deserves scant consideration. The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. While the petitioners adverted to several jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no such consideration. | |||||