This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Maunlad Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. CA[69] and Samala v. Court of Appeals,[70] cited by the petitioner, cannot be applied on the present case. In Maunlad, We allowed the admission of the respondent's documentary exhibits, although its counsel had failed to formally offer them in evidence. We ruled that the failure of the respondent's counsel was excusable since the documents were in the possession of the petitioner. Since the documents were never in the possession of the respondent, and considering the amount of time that had passed since their presentation, it was understandable that they were overlooked when the time came to formally offer the evidence. We likewise ruled that a judgment based on the merits should prevail over the primordial interest of strict enforcement of matters of technicalities. | |||||