This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The principle of substantial compliance recognizes that exigencies and situations do occasionally demand some flexibility in the rigid application of the rules of procedure and the laws.[26] That rules of procedure may be mandatory in form and application does not forbid a showing of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances,[27] because substantial compliance does not equate to a disregard of basic rules. For sure, substantial compliance and strict adherence are not always incompatible and do not always clash in discord. The power of the Court to suspend its own rules or to except any particular case from the operation of the rules whenever the purposes of justice require the suspension cannot be challenged.[28] In the interest of substantial justice, even procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance are frequently relaxed. Similarly, the procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed if strict adherence to their letter will result in absurdity and in manifest injustice, or where the merits of a party's cause are apparent and outweigh considerations of non-compliance with certain formal requirements.[29] It is more in accord with justice that a party-litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his claim or defense than for him to lose his life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. Truly, the rules of procedure are intended to promote substantial justice, not to defeat it, and should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense.[30] Petitioner urges the Court to resolve the apparent conflict between the rulings in Heirs of Pedro Cabais v. Court of Appeals[31] (Cabais) and in Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals[32] (Conti) establishing filiation through a baptismal certificate.[33] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that in administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[15] The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard.[16] In the recent case of Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission,[17] the Court had the opportunity to reiterate the following pronouncements, to wit: In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. | |||||