This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it.[24] After all, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter,[25] as specifically mandated under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court:SEC. 2. Construction. – These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As regards the cases[30] which were later decided allegedly in contravention of Aichi, it is of note that all of them were decided by Divisions of this Court, and not by the Court En Banc. Any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered En Banc or in Division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting En Banc.[31] Thus, the cases cited by the petitioner could not have overturned the doctrine laid down in Aichi. | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It bears mentioning, however, that when the Court En Banc entertains a case for its resolution and disposition, it does so without implying that the Division of origin is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of the Court simply means that the nature of the cases calls for en banc attention and consideration. Neither can it be concluded that the Court has taken undue advantage of sheer voting strength. It is merely guided by the well-studied finding and sustainable opinion of the majority of its actual membership that, indeed, the subject case is of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the whole Court. It is, of course, beyond cavil that all the members of the Highest Court of the land are always imbued with the noblest of intentions in interpreting and applying the germane provisions of law, jurisprudence, rules and resolutions of the Court to the end that public interest be duly safeguarded and the rule of law be observed.[35] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought, the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment, and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency.[25] The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case, provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff.[26] | |||||