This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to respondent's subsequent submission of the complaint and answer as well as other material portions of the records of the case, the Court has ruled in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[19] Jaro v. Court of Appeals[20] and Donato v. Court of Appeals,[21] that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] is worth echoing: "Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[23] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.[24] | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Indeed, on several occasions, we relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties opportunity to fully ventilate the merits of their cases. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[17] | |||||