This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| But while we have so ruled, we recognize nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of our system of judicial processes, and courts should proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. We invariably made this recognition due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure the resolution of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[29] This line of rulings is based, no less, on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions, with the objective of securing for the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[30] In this line of rulings, we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. The law and jurisprudence grant to courts - in the exercise of their discretion along the lines laid down by this Court - the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[31] | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The same is true with Annexes "1" to "6" of petitioner's Position Paper. Annexes "1", "2", and "3" are attached to the Petition for Review as Annexes "3", "4", and "5", respectively, of the Answer. Annex "4" of petitioner's Position Paper is the Contract of Lease marked as Annex "C" of the Complaint, while Annexes "5" and "6" are marked and attached as Annexes "1" and "2", respectively, of the Answer. To our mind, these are more than substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules. Indeed, if we are to apply the rules of procedure in a very rigid and technical sense as what the petitioner suggests in this case, the ends of justice would be defeated. In Lanaria v. Planta,[24] we emphasized that courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice, for rules of procedure are intended to promote, and not to defeat, substantial justice.[25] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the Court held in Spouses Lanaria v. Planta[22] that under Section 3(d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals,[23] the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of substantial justice. Therefore, the appellate court, instead of dismissing outright the Petition, could just as easily have required petitioners to submit the necessary document, i.e., a copy of petitioners' Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed with the MeTC. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Even assuming arguendo that the appellate docket fees were not paid within the reglementary period, this Court, in La Salette College v. Pilotin,[30] held that the mandatory requirement of payment of appellate docket fees is qualified by the following: 1) failure to pay those fees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic dismissal; and 2) 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.[31] For the policy of the courts is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal.[32] | |||||