Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182435 2012-08-13	LILIA B. ADA v. FLORANTE BAYLON REYES, J.
action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may under certain circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration, complaint or petition.[29]
	GR No. 159116 2009-09-30	SPS. NESTOR AND FELICIDAD DADIZON v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, the policy of liberal construction mandated by the Rules of Court may be invoked only in situations in which there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not where its application subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court. Imperative justice requires the correct observance of indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation, for, as Justice Regalado observed in one case:[18]
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
"x x x (T)hey are required to be followed except only when for the most persuasive of reasons them may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. x x x While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, this does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. Justice eschews anarchy."[35] For the exception to come into play, first and foremost should be the party litigant's plausible explanation for non-compliance with the rules he proposes to be exempted from. Absent any acceptable explanation, the party's plain violation of the rules will not be countenanced.
	GR NO. 147417 2005-08-08	SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS PEREZ AND CRISTINA AGRAVIADOR AVISO v. ANTONIO HERMANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To better understand the present controversy, it is vital to revisit the rules on joinder of causes of action as exhaustively discussed in Republic v. Hernandez,[18] thus:By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of action, is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in one action; the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may under certain circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration, complaint or petition.
	GR No. 147417 2005-07-08	SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS PEREZ AND CRISTINA AGRAVIADOR AVISO v. ANTONIO HERMANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To better understand the present controversy, it is vital to revisit the rules on joinder of causes of action as exhaustively discussed in Republic v. Hernandez,[18] thus:By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of causes of action, is meant the uniting of two or more demands or rights of action in one action; the statement of more than one cause of action in a declaration. It is the union of two or more civil causes of action, each of which could be made the basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint, declaration or petition. A plaintiff may under certain circumstances join several distinct demands, controversies or rights of action in one declaration, complaint or petition.
	GR NO. 140086 2005-06-08	TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of Republic v. Hernandez[35] this Court stressed:It cannot be overemphasized that procedural rules have their own wholesome rationale in the orderly administration of justice. Justice has to be administered according to the Rules in order to obviate arbitrariness, caprice, or whimsicality. We have been cautioned and reminded in Limpot v. CA, et al., that:
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Viewed from that light, there is a "unity in the problem presented and a common question of law and fact involved"[48] between the prayer for annulment of the judgment reconstituting TCT No. 12658 and that questioning the denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint for the annulment of titles of parcels of land allegedly already covered by TCT No. 12658. The joinder of the two causes of action is mandated by the need to avoid multiplicity of suits and to promote an efficient administration of justice. In this regard, the Court once said:"While joinder of causes of action is largely left to the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of our present Rules allows causes of action to be joined in one complaint conditioned upon the following requisites: (a) it will not violate the rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties; and (b) the causes of action arise out of the same contract, transaction or relation between the parties, or are for demands for money or are of the same nature and character.