Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FAR CORPORATION v. RENATO MAGDALUYO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174982 2012-09-10	JOSE VICENTE ATILANO II v. JUDGE TIBING A. ASAALI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
However, these same rules may be relaxed, for persuasive and weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with procedure.[11] Thus, in La Salette College v. Pilotin,[12] the Court explained: Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the requirement of payment of appellate docket fees, we also recognize that its strict application is qualified by the following: first, failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in consideration of all attendant circumstances.
	GR No. 154061 2012-01-25	PANAY RAILWAYS INC. v. HEVA MANAGEMENT SERENO, J.
We have repeatedly stated that the term "substantial justice" is not a magic wand that would automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all other rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve litigants of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of their thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[20]
	GR No. 178989 2010-03-18	EAGLE RIDGE GOLF v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
As with most rules of procedure, however, exceptions are invariably recognized and the relaxation of procedural rules on review has been effected to obviate jeopardizing substantial justice.[36] This liberality stresses the importance of review in our judicial grievance structure to accord every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[37] But concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[38]
	GR No. 174109 2008-12-24	RURAL BANK OF SEVEN LAKES v. BELEN A. DAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The use of the words "substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed, simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons, when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[26] Thus, as called upon by the respondents, the Court yields to the time-honored principle "Justice is for all." Litigants must have equal footing in a court of law; the rules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's sweet time and own bidding.[27]
	GR No. 177931 2008-12-08	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DEANG MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court is duty-bound to observe its rules and procedures and uphold the noble purpose behind their issuance. Rules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's sweet time and own bidding.[31]
	GR NO. 164079 2007-04-03	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. DR. ANTERO BONGBONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
While we agree with respondent that the petition has been filed out of time, we do not agree with its plea that the petition should be dismissed solely on this ground. As much as possible, appeals should not be dismissed on a mere technicality in order to afford the litigants the maximum opportunity for the adjudication of their cases on the merits.[41] While rules of procedure must be faithfully followed, they may be relaxed, for persuasive and weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.[42]
	GR NO. 167620 2007-04-03	CAROLINA B. VILLENA v. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the subsequent case of Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo,[46] this Court, while reiterating that the payment of docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional, in the same vein, recognized that the existence of persuasive and weighty reasons call for a relaxation of the rules.