This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-08-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Second, respondent argued that petitioner improperly sent its Petition to the wrong address. On the other hand, the latter insisted that it served its Petition at her last address on record. We note that respondent was able to secure a copy of the Petition and intelligently respond thereto. Thus, we adopt the principle that rules of procedure are employed only to help secure and not override substantial justice.[56] If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter.[57] | |||||