Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 183868 2010-11-22	COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. MARINA SALES MENDOZA, J.
The rules are clear. Before the CTA En Banc could take cognizance of the petition for review concerning a case falling under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently show that it sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new trial with the concerned CTA division. Procedural rules are not to be trifled with or be excused simply because their non-compliance may have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.[33] Rules are meant to be followed. They may be relaxed only for very exigent and persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his careless non-observance of the prescribed rules.[34]
	GR No. 146091 2008-07-28	MARIA PAZ V. NEPOMUCENO v. CITY OF SURIGAO CORONA, J.
Moreover, petitioners cannot properly insist on the application of the CA decision in Spouses Mamerto Espina, Sr. and Flor Espina v. City of Ormoc.[13] A decision of the CA does not establish judicial precedent. A ruling of the CA on any question of law is not binding on this Court.[14] In fact, the Court may review, modify or reverse any such ruling of the CA.