This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-12-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Nor can we appreciate the petitioners' argument that the Secretary of Justice can "impliedly suspend"[55] the DOJ's rules of procedure at anytime. Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.[56] Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain its failure to comply with the rules.[57] Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. The enforcement of procedural rules is not antithetical to the substantive rights of the litigants.[58] The policy of the courts is to give effect to both procedural and substantive laws, as complementing each other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.[59] | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| However, there are exceptions in which certiorari may be resorted to even if an appeal is available. One such instance is where the appeal does not appear to be a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.[12] This is especially true when the substantive questions and the equities involved far outweigh the technical and procedural issues. Thus, where an appeal will not promptly relieve respondents from the injurious effects of the acts of the lower courts, a resort to certiorari may be allowed, especially when the petition is filed while the period for appeal has not yet expired.[13] | |||||