This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| With all these considerations in mind, the Court has come to the conclusion that it cannot precipitately order the summary dismissal of the Annulment Case and set aside the judgments therein rendered in view of a mere forum shopping infraction as afore-discussed. To act otherwise would be tantamount to a blatant disregard of substantial justice in the name of unwarranted technical adherence. Case law dictates that technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[126] As aptly pointed out in Barcelona v. CA,[127] the rule on forum shopping should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. After all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.[128] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Our rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious cases which clog the court dockets and do little more than waste the courts' time.[26] These technical and procedural rules, however, are intended to ensure, rather than suppress, substantial justice.[27] A deviation from their rigid enforcement may thus be allowed, as petitioners should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose their property on mere technicalities.[28] We held in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation [29] that: Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity. | |||||