Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAESAR U. SOMOSO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173326 2010-12-15	SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court is mindful of previous rulings which instructs us that when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits can be made, we may dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[20] However, based on the nature of the two remaining issues propounded before the Court which involve factual issues and given the inadequacy of the records, pleadings, and other evidence available before us to properly resolve those questions, we are constrained to refrain from passing upon them.
	GR No. 151349 2010-10-20	LEANDRO M. ALCANTARA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[20] Clearly, a remand of the instant case to the Court of Appeals would only unnecessarily prolong its resolution which had been pending for nearly a decade.
	GR No. 168715 2010-09-15	MEDLINE MANAGEMENT v. S DEL CASTILLO, J.
This Court is aware that in this case, since the petition is denied, the normal procedure is for it to remand the case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. "However, when there is enough basis on which the Court may render a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioners' case, x x x the Court may dispense with the time[-]consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case."[22] Indeed, remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter for further reception of evidence is not conducive to the speedy administration of justice and it becomes unnecessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. Briefly stated, a remand of the instant case to the Labor Arbiter would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play.
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, we have stressed that the rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not override substantial justice.[38] If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter.[39]
	GR NO. 164195 2007-02-06	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court is aware that in the instant case, since LBP's appeal before the Court of Appeals is to be given due course, the normal procedure is for us to remand the case to the appellate court for further proceedings. However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case.[53] Indeed, remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not conducive to the speedy administration of justice and it becomes unnecessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and expeditious administration of justice, has resolved action on the merits, instead of remanding them for further proceedings, as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case[54] or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties.[55] Briefly stated, a remand of the instant case to the Court of Appeals would serve no purpose save to further delay its disposition contrary to the spirit of fair play.
	GR NO. 164871 2006-08-22	TRUST INTERNATIONAL PAPER CORPORATION v. MARILOU R. PELAEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner insists that its case is an exception to the general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Petitioner invokes this Court's ruling in People's Homesite and Housing Operation v. Workmen's Compensation Commission,[11] Somoso v. Court of Appeals,[12] Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[13] Salazar v. Court of Appeals,[14] Sarraga, Sr. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[15] and Heirs of Pael v. Court of Appeals,[16] where this Court departed from the general rule that the client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer considering that, in said cases, the lawyers were grossly negligent in their duty to maintain their client's cause and such amounted to a deprivation of their client's property without due process of law. In said cases, the petitions for relief from judgment were given due course. However, we find that the ruling in said cases do not apply in the instant case.