Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNITED PARAGON MINING CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192274 2012-02-08	NORBERTO LEE v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.[12] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[13]
	GR No. 181688 2009-06-05	DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. v. ALBERTO J. RAZA VELASCO JR., J.
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.[6] Daikoku urges a less rigid application of procedural rules to give way for the resolution of the case on its merits. The desired leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. The appellate court saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the rules. Neither does the Court.
	GR No. 175049 2008-11-27	HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, ample jurisprudence exists to the effect that subsequent and substantial compliance of a petitioner may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure in the interest of justice. But to merit the Court's liberal consideration, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[36] Hence, deviation from the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping may only be allowed in special circumstances.
	GR No. 150896 2008-08-28	PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NAGKAKAISANG SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG PUREFOODS RANK-AND-FILE NACHURA, J.
The Court cannot even be liberal in the application of the rules because liberality is warranted only in instances when there is substantial compliance with the technical requirements in pleading and practice, and when there is sufficient explanation that the non-compliance is for a justifiable cause, such that the outright dismissal of the case will defeat the administration of justice.[16] Here, the petitioner corporation, in its motion for reconsideration before the appellate court and in its petition before us, did not present a reasonable explanation for its non-compliance with the rules. Further, it cannot be said that petitioner substantially complied therewith, because it did not attach to its motion for reconsideration any proof of the authority of its signatory. It stands to reason, therefore, that this Court now refuses to condone petitioner's procedural transgression.
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
Regrettably, we find substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided for in Circular No. 28-91. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioner here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice. However, the petitioner did not give any explanation to warrant their exemption from the strict application of the rule. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[39] (Emphasis supplied) Too, the party litigant must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[40] The Court's pronouncements in Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[41] are illustrative:x x x In Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman (338 SCRA 62, 68 [2000]), we held that failure of one of the petitioners to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping constitutes a defect in the petition, which is a ground for dismissing the same. While we have held in rulings subsequent to Loquias that this rule may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: first, petitioners must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the certification, and; second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. x x x[42] Recapitulating, the two pre-requisites for the relaxation of the rules are: (a) justifiable cause or plausible reason for non-compliance; and (b) compelling reason to convince the court that outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice.