This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized, however, that it is not mandatory on the part of the trial court to admit an Answer which is belatedly filed where the defendant is not yet declared in default. Settled is the rule that it is within the discretion of the trial court to permit the filing of an answer even beyond the reglementary period, provided that there is justification for the belated action and there is no showing that the defendant intended to delay the case.[24] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. The court's discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion's timeliness, the passing of which renders the court powerless to entertain or grant it. Since the motion for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period, there was no more period to extend.[8] | |||||
|
2010-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, have often been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business.[51] Section 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides that "[t]he civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto." Records show that the notice was last published on July 26, 2007. [52] | |||||