Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. ILDEFONSO T. OLETA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 170540 2009-10-28	BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
Whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court.[23] Considering the circumstances established on record in the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to set aside the order of the RTC dismissing the complaint of petitioner against PNB.
	GR No. 182426 2009-02-13	ZENAIDA POLANCO v. CARMEN CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, 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.[26] Indeed, on several occasions, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties opportunity to fully ventilate the merits of their cases. 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.[27]
	GR No. 176706 2008-10-08	MANIGO K. RAMOS v. SPS. PURITA G. ALVENDIA AND OSCAR ALVENDIA AND SPS. JOSE AND ARACELI SEVERINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court had "no discretion" on the matter of a party's failure to file a pre-trial brief. If the trial court has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff's failure to appear at pre-trial, then the trial court also has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff's failure to file the pre-trial brief. Moreover, whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court.[25] (Underscoring supplied)