This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With regard to the dismissal of the case by the CA on technical grounds, the Court is of the view that it was correct. DEARBC clearly failed to comply with the rules which mistake was a fatal error warranting the dismissal of the petition for review. However, it has been the constant ruling of this Court that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from constraints of technicalities.[15] Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided.[16] Thus, the Court opts to brush aside the procedural flaw and resolve the core issue of jurisdiction as it has been discussed by the parties anyway. | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, David paid the docket fees as assessed by the Clerk of Court. Even if the amount was insufficient, as claimed by John and LLDC, fraud and bad faith cannot be attributed to David to warrant the dismissal of his complaint. Consistent with the principle of liberality in the interpretation of the Rules, in the interest of substantial justice, this Court had repeatedly refrained from dismissing the case on that ground alone. Instead, it considered the deficiency in the payment of the docket fees as a lien on the judgment which must be remitted to the Clerk of Court of the court a quo upon the execution of the judgment.[77] | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, APT reiterates its proposition that DOMSAT failed to pay the correct amount of docket fees before the Antipolo trial court, claiming that DOMSAT initially paid only P5,604.00 representing the docket fees based on the original complaint. But as held by the appellate court this matter has been settled with the payment by DOMSAT on 1 April 1991 to the Clerk of Court of an additional P4,672.39, the sum needed to complete the amount due as docket fees. At any rate, judgment awards which may be proved during trial would still be subject to additional filing fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It is the responsibility of the Clerk of Court of the Antipolo Regional Trial Court to enforce the lien and assess and collect the additional fees.[19] | |||||