This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The rules were instituted to be faithfully complied with,[38] and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of a party like the petitioner was impermissible.[39] Such rules, often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Their liberal construction in exceptional situations should then rest on a showing of justifiable reasons and of at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them.[40] We have repeatedly emphasized this standard. In Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, (4th Division),[41] for instance, we declared: The petitioners' plea for the application of the principles of substantial justice in their favor deserves scant consideration. The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. While the petitioners adverted to several jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no such consideration. | |||||
|
2013-01-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, simultaneous with the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, the proper certificate of non-forum shopping was submitted by the petitioner in Donato. Notably in this case, the SPA was submitted two months after the filing of Anderson's Motion for Reconsideration. It took that long because instead of executing an SPA before the proper authorities in Hawaii and sending the same to the Philippines, Anderson still waited until she came back to the country and only then did she execute one. It thus puzzles the Court why Anderson opted not to immediately submit the SPA despite her awareness that the same should have been submitted simultaneously with the Petition for Review. Hence, it cannot help but conclude that the delay in the submission of the SPA is nothing but a product of Anderson's sheer laxity and indifference in complying with the rules. It is well to stress that "[r]ules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's sweet time and own bidding."[41] They should be faithfully complied with[42] and may not simply be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.[43] Although they are liberally construed in some situations, there must, however, be a showing of justifiable reasons and at least a reasonable attempt at compliance therewith,[44] which unfortunately are not obtaining in this case. | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, "[t]he existence and availability of the right of appeal proscribes a resort to certiorari."[22] The court a quo could have instead dismissed Nilo's petition on the ground that this question should have been raised by way of an appeal.[23] This rule is subject to exceptions, such as "when the writs issued are null and void or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority."[24] As will be later on discussed, the RTC, although it ultimately erred in its judgment, was nevertheless correct in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari. The exceptions we mentioned apply in the case at bar, as it turns out that petitioner's jurisdictional objection has compelling basis. | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Even if this Court accedes to petitioner's request that he be considered to have received a copy of the CA Decision only on August 18, 2004, he is still not entitled to the remedy of a writ of certiorari. The Court categorically declared in Iloilo La Filipina Uygongco Corporation v.Court of Appeals,[25] that if what is being assailed is a CA Decision, then "Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides that an appeal by certiorari from the judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA is by verified petition for review on certiorari." [26] The Court further held in said case that:The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via Rule 65 because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. In this case, petitioner had an adequate remedy, namely, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A petition for review on certiorari, not a special civil action for certiorari was, therefore, the correct remedy. | |||||