Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. SARGASSO CONSTRUCTION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 170633 2007-10-17	MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. SSANGYONG CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
In Philippine Ports Authority v. Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation,[59] we ruled that:In Orata v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we held that where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, this Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction. In addition to the basic merits of the main case, such a petition usually embodies justifying circumstance which warrants our heeding to the petitioner's cry for justice in spite of the earlier negligence of counsel. As we held in Obut v. Court of Appeals:
	GR NO. 156304 2006-10-23	ANACLETO R. MENESES v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Philippine Ports Authortity v. Sargasso Construction & Development Corp.,[25] the Court excused the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel's belated filing of the notice of appeal because sustaining the finality of the CA's dismissal of the appeal would leave the petitioner no other remedy to assail the decision of the trial court, and it would then have to implement the award of the reclamation project to the respondents for the enhancement of the San Fernando, La Union port for the price of P30,794,230.89 without the benefit of a public bidding, and sans the approval of its Board of Directors.
	GR NO. 153721 2006-09-15	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. MARIO RUSTIA CORONA, J.
In Philippine Ports Authority v. Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation,[17] we also ruled that the rules of procedure are intended to serve, not override, justice. Also, in Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines v. Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc.,[18] we refused to render obeisance to technicality as it would have placed justice in a straightjacket and hampered its administration.