This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| On the issue of non-compliance with the required certification on non-forum shopping, the RTC noted that Naval-Sai did not explain why she failed to comply with the Rules. The RTC cited the case of Five Star Bus Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[17] where we, faced with the similar issue of whether or not to dismiss a petition on the ground that the certification was signed by counsel, ruled that there was non-compliance with the Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91[18] and that substantial compliance cannot be applied.[19] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have set forth in detail the various instances in which they benefitted from the liberality of the RTC in its desire to enable them to prove their side. Contrary to their unworthy representations, therefore, petitioners were afforded more than ample opportunity to adduce their evidence. That the RTC ultimately declared them to have waived their right to present evidence was warranted.[33] They should not be allowed to waste the trial court's time and attention through dilatory tactics that have no place in the fair administration of justice. Parties like them who do not seize the opportunity to participate in the proceedings have no grounds to complain of deprivation of due process. It is not amiss to note that the trial judge had actually warned them of the dire consequence to be surely visited upon them should they persist on not presenting their evidence. That they ignored the warnings demonstrated their low regard of the judicial proceedings. We reiterate that an opportunity not availed of is deemed forfeited without violating the Bill of Rights.[34] | |||||