Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
However, there have been instances when the demands of substantial justice convinced us to apply the Rules liberally by way of compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement;[45] the rule on certification against forum shopping, while obligatory, is not jurisdictional. Justifiable cirsumtances may intervene and be recognized, leading the Court to relax the application of this rule.[46]
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
As summarized in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[47] when a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification would result in a patent denial of substantial justice, they may be liberally construed. An unforgiving application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules will not be given premium if it would impede rather than serve the best interests of justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration.
	GR No. 168667 2008-07-23	SPS. ALFREDO D. VALMONTE AND MARIA LOURDES A. VALMONTE v. CLARITA ALCALA BRION, J.
Verification, when required, is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct; are not speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith.[19] To achieve this purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through an affidavit or sworn statement confirming that the affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are true and correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic records.[20]
	GR NO. 155343 2005-09-02	BENGUET CORPORATION v. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION QUISUMBING, J.
This Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional.[9] Such requirement is a condition affecting the form of the pleading; non-compliance with this requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[10] Further, the purpose of the aforesaid certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping.[11] Considering that later on Mr. Bolaño's authority to sign the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping was ratified[12] by the board, there is no circumvention of these objectives.
	GR NO. 160455 2005-05-09	ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY v. JOVITA S. MANALO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are established to secure substantial justice. Being instruments for the speedy and efficient administration of justice, they must be used to achieve such end, not to derail it.[21] In particular, when a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, these may be liberally construed.[22]
	GR No. 148223 2004-11-25	FERNANDO GABATIN v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Rules of Court provides that parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.[32] In BPI v. Court of Appeals,[33] this Court explained:. . . An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
	GR No. 129638 2003-12-08	ANTONIO T. DONATO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court's pronouncement in Republic vs. Court of Appeals[37] is worth echoing: "cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[38] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.[39] This guideline is especially true when the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the lapse and fulfilled the requirements in his motion for reconsideration,[40] as in this case.
	GR No. 156039 2003-08-14	KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID v. ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA BELLOSILLO, J.
We have ruled previously[41] that substantial compliance with the certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient. The equitable circumstances pleaded to show substantial compliance include the proximity of the filing of the complaint to the date of the effectivity of the circular requiring the certificate and the belated filing thereof, but the mere submission thereof after the filing of a motion to dismiss does not ipso facto operate as a substantial compliance.[42] As summarized in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[43] "[w]hen a strict and literal application of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will result in a patent denial of substantial justice, they may be liberally construed. This guideline is especially true when the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the lapse and fulfilled the requirements in its motion for reconsideration."