Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DR. REY C. TAMBONG v. R. JORGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193271 2015-10-05	LOLITA M. SANTIAGO v. SILVESTRE H. BELLO IV BRION, J.
We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause; they should be free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities.[4] However, it is an equally settled rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is required to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[5]
	GR No. 162230 2014-08-12	ISABELITA C. VINUYA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO BERSAMIN, J.
As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition; otherwise, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari. As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R. Jorge Development Corporation:[17]
	GR NO. 172174 2009-07-09	DAVAO CONTRACTORS DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE v. MARILYN A. PASAWA QUISUMBING, J.
On the matter of material dates, the petition for certiorari failed to indicate the material dates that would show the timeliness of the filing thereof with the Court of Appeals. It is settled that the following material dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: first, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.[19] In the case before us, petitioner failed to indicate the first and second dates, particularly the date of receipt of the NLRC resolution and the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration.[20] As explicitly stated in Rule 65, failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.[21]