This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. If the rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation, it is because of the higher objective they seek which are the attainment of justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties. Thus, the relaxation of procedural rules, or saving a particular case from the operation of technicalities when substantial justice requires it, as in the instant case, should no longer be subject to cavil."[17] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| It should be emphasized that these requirements are for the purpose of avoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court.[3] Where a party had the opportunity to be heard, then the purpose has been served and the requirement substantially complied with.[4] In this case, even the COMELEC admitted that respondent was heard and afforded his day in court;[5] hence, it should not have annulled the RTC special order on said ground. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| imperfections.[15] It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice.[16] While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be too strict with procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. The rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation because of the higher objective they seek, which is the attainmentof justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties.[17] In Republic v. Imperial,[18] the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., stressed that the filing of the appellant's brief in appeals is not a jurisdictional requirement. But an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on grounds enumerated under Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. The Court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court.[19] In the case at bench, without touching on the merits of the case, there appears a good and efficient cause to warrant the suspension of the rules. Petitioners' failure to file the appeal brief within the extended period may have been rendered excusable by force of | |||||
|
2007-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court "abused its discretion" when it reinstated the complaint despite the fact that petitioner's counsel had no special authority to represent petitioner at pre-trial. However, abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The abuse must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily and despotically.[18] In this case, there is no showing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in reinstating petitioner's complaint. | |||||