Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 169914 2008-04-18	ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It cannot be denied though that the Court in the 2004 Resolution prescribed mandatory guidelines which the Government must observe before it could acquire the NAIA 3 facilities. Thus, the actions of respondent judge under review, as well as the arguments of the parties must, to merit affirmation, pass the threshold test of whether such propositions are in accord with the 2004 Resolution.[64]
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
Notwithstanding these principles, however, the higher interests of justice and equity demand that we brush aside the procedural norms. After all, rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than defeat substantial justice, and should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. Rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice; they are promulgated to aid the court in the effective dispensation of justice. The Court has the inherent power and discretion to amend, modify or reconsider a final judgment when it is necessary to accomplish the ends of justice.[26]