This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In contrast, simple neglect of duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."[25] | |||||
|
2007-10-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, where as here, there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the [r]ules, we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice. It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation. (emphasis supplied) In Herrera v. Bohol,[10] this Court stated that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month or a fine equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable. However, this rule is not without exception. In Republic v. Canastillo,[11] the Court declared that decisions of administrative agencies which are declared final and unappealable by law are still subject to judicial review if they fail the test of arbitrariness, or upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. | |||||