This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have further said that a procedural rule that is amended for the benefit of litigants in furtherance of the administration of justice shall be retroactively applied to likewise favor actions then pending, as equity delights in equality.[102] We may even relax stringent procedural rules in order to serve substantial justice and in the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction.[103] Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.[104] | |||||
|
2009-09-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While Batalla concedes that his motion for reconsideration of the April 3, 2008 Order of the Comelec First Division was not verified, he submits that he cured the omission by attaching to the instant petition his Verification[16] as compliance for his motion. He begs our indulgence in light of the Court's ruling in Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,[17] which reiterated the liberal application of the rules in the perfection of an appeal upon substantial justice and equity considerations. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Rules of procedure are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice. They should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense.[70] For reasons of justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the stringent rules governing appeals.[71] It has, in the past, refused to sacrifice justice for technicality.[72] | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a last remedy. It can not be resorted to if the ordinary remedies are available or no longer available through no fault of petitioner.[32] However, in Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,[33] this Court clarified the proper appreciation for technical rules of procedure, in this wise:Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that while the Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also, in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[34] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) For reasons of justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the stringent rules governing appeals.[35] It has, in the past, refused to sacrifice justice for technicality.[36] | |||||
|
2007-03-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioner. Delivery is the act by which the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another.[30] Although respondent did not physically receive the proceeds of the checks, these instruments were placed in her control and possession under an arrangement whereby she actually re-lent the amounts to Santiago. | |||||
|
2007-02-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[11] The limitation on the period of appeal is not without reason. They must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid unreasonable delays in the administration of justice, to ensure an orderly discharge of judicial business, and to put an end to controversies.[12] Though as a general rule, rules of procedures are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied and are only relaxed in very exceptional circumstances on equitable considerations,[13] which are not present in the instant case. | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
|||||
| The failure to pay docket fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal, it being discretionary on the part of the appellate court to give it due course or not.[9] We will then not interfere with matters addressed to the sound discretion of the CA in the absence of proof that the exercise of such discretion was tainted with bias or prejudice, or made without due circumspection of the attendant circumstances of the case.[10] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| The established rule is that the payment in full of the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. Nevertheless, this rule must be qualified, to wit: First, the failure to pay appellate court docket fee within the reglementary period allows only discretionary dismissal, not automatic dismissal, of the appeal; Second, such power should be used in the exercise of the Court's sound discretion "in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play and with great deal of circumspection considering all attendant circumstances.[11] In Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Mangubat,[12] the payment of the docket fees was delayed by six days but the Court excused the late payment because the party showed willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying the docket fees. Also, we ruled in Yambao v. Court of Appeals that "the appellate court may extend the time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able to show that there is a justifiable reason for x x x failure to pay the correct amount of docket fees within the prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault on the part of the appellant."[13] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The underlying consideration in this petition is that the act of dismissing the notice of appeal, if done in excess of the trial court's jurisdiction, amounts to an undue denial of the petitioners' right to appeal. The importance and real purpose of the remedy of appeal has been emphasized in Castro v. Court of Appeals where this Court ruled that an appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and trial courts are advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal and instructed that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[26] The Court could have resolved this case on its merits considering that the records have already been elevated. It appears, however, that the present petition involved only the issue of whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in accepting private respondent's belated payment of docket fees. It was on this issue that the parties focused their arguments, and it would be a deprivation of their respective rights to due process if the Court were to resolve the merits of this case, without giving them the opportunity to present their respective stances. Consequently, the Court remands this case to the CA for the continuation of the proceedings before it. | |||||