Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JIMMY L. BARNES v. TERESITA C. REYES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 158960 2006-11-24	LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The use of the word "may" clearly shows that it is directory in nature and not mandatory as petitioner contends.[25] When used in a statute, it is permissive only and operates to confer discretion; while the word "shall" is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced.[26] Applying Section 20 (5), therefore, it is discretionary upon the Ombudsman whether or not to conduct an investigation on a complaint even if it was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of. In fine, the complaint is not barred by prescription.
	GR NO. 164947 2006-01-31	SONIA MACEDA v. ENCARNACION DE GUZMAN VDA. DE MACATANGAY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Sonia's affidavit of service clearly shows the impracticability of personal service of copies of the petition to the adverse parties. Manifest in the same affidavit is the intervenor Social Security System's address in Quezon City; that of the private respondent's lawyer in Lopez, Quezon, and that of Social Security Commission in Makati City. Sonia's counsel's address is Lucena City. The distance between these addresses, it is most respectfully submitted as a matter of judicial notice, may be construed as more than competent indicia as to why Sonia resorted to service by mail.[32] (Underscoring supplied) And they cite jurisprudence calling for a liberal interpretation of the Rules in the interest of substantial justice,[33] specifically Barnes v. Reyes[34] which classifies Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules as a directory, rather than a mandatory, rule.
	GR NO. 155343 2005-09-02	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION QUISUMBING, J.
The Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied with reason and liberality[14] to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial justice. Thus, the dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness.[15] No such result happened here.