Lawyerly

GR No. 161878

2013-06-05

PHILWORTH ASIAS v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

Petitioners were not denied their right to be heard. As outlined above, the RTC set the case several times for the pre-trial and the trial. In so doing, the RTC undeniably relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure out of its desire to afford to petitioners the opportunity to fully ventilate their side on the merits of the case. The RTC thereby acted with liberality. This was in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all the parties the chance to argue and prove their respective sides.[32] Here, however, they apparently stretched the limits of the RTC's liberality, to the point of abusing it. A review of the proceedings has given the Court the impression that they deliberately delayed the presentation of their evidence by asking postponements of the hearings. The pattern of delay that followed indicated that they did not intend to present any evidence in their favor, and that they were simply temporizing as a way of avoiding the inevitable adverse outcome of the case. Otherwise, they and their counsel would have easily completed the task of presenting their evidence and shunned the delays. They did present Ms. Garcia on direct examination, but they thereafter did not see to the completion of her testimony.

GR No. 141508

2010-05-05

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON

Verily, in numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time- honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[37] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[38] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[39] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. [40] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[41] In the case at bar, considering that the same involves the various claims of 371 respondents, this Court finds that justice and equity are best served by allowing respondents to prove their case on the merits rather than denying them their day in court on a strict application of the rules.

GR No. 177456

2009-09-04

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[30] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[31]

GR No. 182267

2009-08-28

PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[20] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[21]

GR No. 160717

2008-07-23

FELICISIMA LUMBRE Y SARITA v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Petitioners seek liberality in the application of the rules. They conveniently forget that such liberality was, at the outset, accorded to them by the CA when the appellate court granted them an extension of thirty (30) days, giving their counsel a total of seventy-five (75) days to prepare said brief. Despite such leniency, counsel allowed the extended period to lapse without even filing another motion for extension. It took nearly a month from the lapse of the extended period before counsel filed an unverified Motion to Admit Herein Attached Appellants' Brief together with the said Brief, and only after Florante had already filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioners' appeal. [31]

GR No. 173002

2008-07-04

BENJAMIN BAUTISTA v. SHIRLEY G. UNANGST

REYES, R.T., J.

Technicality and procedural imperfections should thus not serve as bases of decisions.[50] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[51]

GR No. 164150

2008-04-14

GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF BELGIUM v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Asian Spirit Airlines (Airline Employees Cooperative) v. Bautista[26] stayed on course with the more recent jurisprudence by refusing to allow the late filing of the appellant's brief on the ground of the mistake or inadvertence of the counsel's secretary:Blaming its counsel's unidentified secretary for its abject failure to file its brief is a common practice for negligent lawyers to cover up for their own negligence, incompetence, indolence, and ineptitude. Such excuse is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all pleadings should be filed and duly served within the period therefor and, if he fails to do so, the negligence of his secretary or clerk to file such pleading is imputable to the said counsel.

GR NO. 159919

2007-08-08

COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Verily, litigation is not a game of technicalities. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[25] Indeed, on numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[26] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[27] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[28] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[29] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[30]

GR NO. 159189

2007-02-21

MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO

QUISUMBING, J.

Lastly, it must be pointed out that while the Court allows a relaxation in the application of procedural rules in some instances, courts and litigants are enjoined to follow rules strictly because they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases.[31] Instead of rules being followed, however, we find their misapplication in this case resulting to inconsistent rulings, confusion and delay. Had the trial court exercised its inherent power to control its proceedings,[32] it would not have taken this long to reach pre-trial, which had been first set on December 2, 1999 through respondent university's motion. Significantly, even the trial court had tentatively set the pre-trial on June 7, 2002[33] but erroneously dismissed the amended complaint on April 11, 2002.

GR NO. 144024

2006-07-27

PEDRO TAGABI v. MARGARITO TANQUE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights.[18] Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[19]

	GR No. 161878 2013-06-05	PHILWORTH ASIAS v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK BERSAMIN, J.
Petitioners were not denied their right to be heard. As outlined above, the RTC set the case several times for the pre-trial and the trial. In so doing, the RTC undeniably relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure out of its desire to afford to petitioners the opportunity to fully ventilate their side on the merits of the case. The RTC thereby acted with liberality. This was in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all the parties the chance to argue and prove their respective sides.[32] Here, however, they apparently stretched the limits of the RTC's liberality, to the point of abusing it. A review of the proceedings has given the Court the impression that they deliberately delayed the presentation of their evidence by asking postponements of the hearings. The pattern of delay that followed indicated that they did not intend to present any evidence in their favor, and that they were simply temporizing as a way of avoiding the inevitable adverse outcome of the case. Otherwise, they and their counsel would have easily completed the task of presenting their evidence and shunned the delays. They did present Ms. Garcia on direct examination, but they thereafter did not see to the completion of her testimony.
	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
Verily, in numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time- honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[37] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[38] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[39] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. [40] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[41] In the case at bar, considering that the same involves the various claims of 371 respondents, this Court finds that justice and equity are best served by allowing respondents to prove their case on the merits rather than denying them their day in court on a strict application of the rules.
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[30] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[31]
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[20] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[21]
	GR No. 160717 2008-07-23	FELICISIMA LUMBRE Y SARITA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Petitioners seek liberality in the application of the rules. They conveniently forget that such liberality was, at the outset, accorded to them by the CA when the appellate court granted them an extension of thirty (30) days, giving their counsel a total of seventy-five (75) days to prepare said brief. Despite such leniency, counsel allowed the extended period to lapse without even filing another motion for extension. It took nearly a month from the lapse of the extended period before counsel filed an unverified Motion to Admit Herein Attached Appellants' Brief together with the said Brief, and only after Florante had already filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioners' appeal. [31]
	GR No. 173002 2008-07-04	BENJAMIN BAUTISTA v. SHIRLEY G. UNANGST REYES, R.T., J.
Technicality and procedural imperfections should thus not serve as bases of decisions.[50] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[51]
	GR No. 164150 2008-04-14	GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF BELGIUM v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Asian Spirit Airlines (Airline Employees Cooperative) v. Bautista[26] stayed on course with the more recent jurisprudence by refusing to allow the late filing of the appellant's brief on the ground of the mistake or inadvertence of the counsel's secretary:Blaming its counsel's unidentified secretary for its abject failure to file its brief is a common practice for negligent lawyers to cover up for their own negligence, incompetence, indolence, and ineptitude. Such excuse is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all pleadings should be filed and duly served within the period therefor and, if he fails to do so, the negligence of his secretary or clerk to file such pleading is imputable to the said counsel.
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Verily, litigation is not a game of technicalities. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[25] Indeed, on numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[26] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[27] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[28] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[29] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[30]
	GR NO. 159189 2007-02-21	MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, it must be pointed out that while the Court allows a relaxation in the application of procedural rules in some instances, courts and litigants are enjoined to follow rules strictly because they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases.[31] Instead of rules being followed, however, we find their misapplication in this case resulting to inconsistent rulings, confusion and delay. Had the trial court exercised its inherent power to control its proceedings,[32] it would not have taken this long to reach pre-trial, which had been first set on December 2, 1999 through respondent university's motion. Significantly, even the trial court had tentatively set the pre-trial on June 7, 2002[33] but erroneously dismissed the amended complaint on April 11, 2002.
	GR NO. 144024 2006-07-27	PEDRO TAGABI v. MARGARITO TANQUE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights.[18] Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[19]

ASIAN SPIRIT AIRLINES v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ANNE MARIE BAUTISTA