This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[30] The filing of a motion for reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.[31] While there are well recognized exceptions to this rule,[32] this petition is not covered by any of those exceptions. The Court of Appeals was not given any opportunity either to rectify whatever error it may have made or to address the ascription and aspersion of grave abuse of discretion thrown at it by petitioner. Nor did petitioner offer any compelling reason to warrant a deviation from the rule. The instant petition for certiorari is therefore fatally defective. | |||||
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Besides, no substantive right was violated by the voluntary compliance by the RTC-Branch 1 with the directive in the ISA case even without a motion for execution having been filed. To the contrary, the RTC-Branch 1 merely enforced the judicially determined right of the Republic to the substitution. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the administration of justice. If the rules are intended to insure the orderly conduct of litigation it is because of the higher objective they seek which is the protection of the substantive rights of the parties.[71] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In exceptional cases, we had allowed a liberal application of the rule. The recent case of Villena v. Rupisan,[24] extensively discussed and enumerated the various instances recognized as exceptions to the stringent application of the rule in the matter of paying the docket fees, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.[25] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Villena v. Rupisan[26] pronounced the current jurisprudence on the matter, to wit:In the case of Gegare v. Court of Appeals [358 Phil. 228 (1998)], this Court upheld the appellate court's dismissal of an appeal for failure of petitioner to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period despite a notice from the Court of Appeals informing him that such fees had to be paid within 15 days from receipt of such notice. Denying petitioner's plea for judicial leniency, we held that | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In their supplemental reply, petitioners cite the recent decision in Villena v. Rupisan[29] where the appellate docket fees were paid six (6) days after the lapse of the period to appeal. The Court therein did uphold the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the trial court's denial of the notice of appeal. The appellants in Villena explained that their failure to timely pay the docket fees was on account of their avowed poverty, a justification of a somewhat differing variety from those above-cited. Still, Villena cannot apply as precedent in this case, or indeed as a super-precedent that cleanses any tardiness accompanying the payment of appellate docket fees. At most, it adds to the exceptions, rather than establishes a new general rule. It bears notice that in Villena, the Court affirmed the exercise of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, which had opted for a liberal application of the Rules, since such exercise of discretion did not constitute an error of law as is clear from the ample precedents allowing for such liberal construction. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It has been held that when non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not intended for delay or does not prejudice the adverse party, the dismissal of an appeal on a mere technicality may be stayed and the court may, in its sound discretion, exercise its equity jurisdiction.[13] In this case, respondents will not suffer any disadvantage or prejudice if petitioners' appeal is given due course. Also, the Court finds that petitioners' justification in not filing the Notice of Appeal after their initial receipt of the RTC Decision has sufficient basis and was obviously not intended for delay. It should be noted that what petitioners received was an unreadable copy of the RTC Decision. While it may be true that all petitioners had to do was file a one-page Notice of Appeal, still, it would simply be inequitous to expect petitioners to merely rely on the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, so as to know what exactly they must do. Should they file a motion for reconsideration or should they appeal? As it is, they did not have any well-informed idea as to how the RTC resolved the merits of their case, which particular portion of the RTC Decision they will appeal, and whether their appeal involves pure questions of law, or of law and facts. | |||||
|
2007-07-09 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It has been held that when non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not intended for delay or does not prejudice the adverse party, the dismissal of an appeal on a mere technicality may be stayed and the court may, in its sound discretion, exercise its equity jurisdiction.[13] In this case, respondents will not suffer any disadvantage or prejudice if petitioners' appeal is given due course. Also, the Court finds that petitioners' justification in not filing the Notice of Appeal after their initial receipt of the RTC Decision has sufficient basis and was obviously not intended for delay. It should be noted that what petitioners received was an unreadable copy of the RTC Decision. While it may be true that all petitioners had to do was file a one-page Notice of Appeal, still, it would simply be inequitous to expect petitioners to merely rely on the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, so as to know what exactly they must do. Should they file a motion for reconsideration or should they appeal? As it is, they did not have any well-informed idea as to how the RTC resolved the merits of their case, which particular portion of the RTC Decision they will appeal, and whether their appeal involves pure questions of law, or of law and facts. | |||||