Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 116121 2011-07-18	HEIRS OF LATE RUBEN REINOSO v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Considering the foregoing, there is a need to suspend the strict application of the rules so that the petitioners would be able to fully and finally prosecute their claim on the merits at the appellate level rather than fail to secure justice on a technicality, for, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[16]
	GR No. 160610 2009-08-14	JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In this case, the Court of Appeals should have granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and given due course to the petition in view of petitioner's subsequent compliance by filing an Amended Petition, impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent. Technicalities may be set aside when the strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than promote justice.[13]
	GR No. 161778 2009-04-07	CAYETANO A. TEJANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN PERALTA, J.
The right to appeal is a purely statutory right. Not being a natural right or a part of due process, the right to appeal may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the rules provided therefor.[36] As petitioner failed to exercise this right, he cannot prevent the execution of judgment against him by resorting to a certiorari petition.