Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODRIGO QUIRAO v. LYDIA QUIRAO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211113 2015-06-29	ADERITO Z. YUJUICO v. UNITED RESOURCES ASSET MANAGEMENT PEREZ, J.
As a matter of judicial policy, courts are impelled to treat motions for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality.[33] This is especially true when a motion for leave is filed during the early stages of proceedings or, at least, before trial.[34] Our case law had long taught that bona fide amendments to pleadings should be allowed in the interest of justice so that every case may, so far as possible, be determined on its real facts and the multiplicity of suits thus be prevented.[35] Hence, as long as it does not appear that the motion for leave was made with bad faith or with intent to delay the proceedings,[36] courts are justified to grant leave and allow the filing of an amended pleading. Once a court grants leave to file an amended pleading, the same becomes binding and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that the court had abused its discretion.[37]
	GR No. 211113 2015-06-29	ADERITO Z. YUJUICO v. UNITED RESOURCES ASSET MANAGEMENT PEREZ, J.
We should always remember that our rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their application should never be allowed to frustrate the truth and the promotion of substantial justice.[39] Were we to succumb to petitioner's arguments today, however, we would have sanctioned an outcome totally inconsistent with the underlying purpose of our procedural laws. That, we simply cannot countenance.
	GR No. 167390 2010-07-26	SPS. ADOLFO FERNANDEZ v. SPS. MARTINES CO AND ERLINDA CO PERALTA, J.
As regards the other technical defects raised in issue, We agree with the Court of Appeals that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.[50]
	GR NO. 142464 2005-09-26	GUILLERMO DELA CRUZ v. DEODORO J. SISON
Admittance of respondent bank's Answer would have been the more prudent recourse.[29]
	GR NO. 161776 2005-03-10	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. DAVID E. ESERJOSE AND ZENAIDA ESERJOSE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, cases should be determined on the merits after all parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections.[9] We should always bear in mind that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts.[10]