Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 109645 2015-01-21	ORTIGAS v. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO LEONEN, J.
The Court of Appeals found that contrary to Molina's assertion that she filed 10 duplicate copies, only four were filed.[126] Of the four duplicate copies, none included the "duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Resolutions."[127] Gabionza v. Court of Appeals,[128] cited by her, is not applicable because there was substantial compliance with the rules of procedure in that case.[129]
	GR No. 179620 2008-08-26	MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY REYES, R.T., J.
Generally, an appeal taken either to the Supreme Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.[30] This is to prevent the party from benefiting from one's neglect and mistakes. However, like most rules, it carries certain exceptions. After all, the ultimate purpose of all rules of procedures is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[31]
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court has held that Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[19] The same guideline still applies in interpreting what is now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[20]
	GR No. 156078 2008-03-14	MARASIGAN v. MARASIGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should not be forgotten that the purpose of the rules of procedure is to secure for the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. [49] The ultimate purpose of the rules of procedure is to attain, not defeat, substantial justice.[50]
	GR NO. 158031 2007-11-20	CALINISAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
Fourth. The Court finds that the continuation of the proceedings in the RTC, rather than the dismissal of the petitioners' registration application, will best serve the interest of substantial justice.[16] Dismissing the RTC land registration case will leave petitioners, as well as respondent, without a remedy in view of the earlier dismissal of the MCTC case.[17] Therefore, it is ultimately for the benefit of both parties that the RTC case continues. In this way, the parties' respective claims over the property will properly be litigated upon and will finally be resolved by the court of competent jurisdiction. The rule against forum shopping was formulated to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[18] It should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to defeat its primary objective of facilitating the speedy disposition of cases.[19]
	GR NO. 159674 2006-06-30	SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Revised Circular No. 28-91 "was designed x x x to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."[8] Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, justice.[9] The same guidelines should still apply in interpreting what is now Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.