This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, petitioner's failure to emphasize before the GSIS and the ECC the issue of whether he may be compensated for his alleged cardiovascular disease is fatal to his case, for by this omission, he is deemed to have waived such issue.[13] | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Thus, in Suzuki v. De Guzman,[36] the Court held:As a general rule, these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. While the Court is not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain his failure to comply with the rules. There must be at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[37] (Emphasis supplied) In Ortiz v. Court of Appeals,[38] the CA dismissed the petition for review outright for failure of petitioners to sign the certification of non-forum shopping. The certification was signed only by their lawyer. In affirming the dismissal of the petition, the Court said: | |||||