Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JESUS A. CASIM v. BRUNO CASIM FLORDELIZA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 160717 2008-07-23	FELICISIMA LUMBRE Y SARITA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Petitioners and their counsel do not deny their procedural infractions, but they ask this Court's indulgence to relax the rules. Unfortunately for petitioners, their plea is not entirely for this Court to decide. If we grant this prayer, we would effectively be faulting the CA for its faithful compliance with the rules of procedure. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 44 and 50 which are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the CA, truly cannot be ignored. The rules provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner at the prescribed time in an orderly confrontation before a judge whose authority is acknowledged. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to, and tolerate, the transgressions of these rules; [30] to do so would be a disavowal of our own pronouncements. In sum, we cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the CA which merely followed the said rules in dismissing the appeal.
	GR NO. 143664 2006-06-30	MARISON C. BASUEL v. FACT-FINDING AZCUNA, J.
While the rigid application of the rules of procedure has, in the past, been relaxed so that the ends of justice may be better served, such liberality may not be invoked if it would result in the wanton disregard of the rules, and cause needless delay. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with the rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[21] Under the factual circumstances of this case, the negligence of petitioner's counsel does not constitute sufficient justification for a liberal application of procedural rules in her favor. In addition, to grant petitioner's request would be to fault the CA for acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure which that court has been mandated to observe.[22] Viewed in this light, it cannot be said that the CA committed an error in denying the petition for being procedurally defective.
	GR NO. 156894 2005-12-02	GUILLERMO A. CRUZ v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner does not deny the procedural infraction on his part, but he asks for the relaxation of the rules. Granting his plea, however, would be to fault the appellate court for acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure which the court has been mandated to observe.[7]
	GR No. 154460 2005-11-22	LAURO C. DEGAMO v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORP. QUISUMBING, J.
Though heavy workload and extreme pressures may be allowed under the principle of substantial justice as a reason for the grant of an extension of time, the Court of Appeals has no authority to grant an extension of thirty days, or beyond the fifteen days allowed under the Rules. We cannot fault the appellate court for faithfully complying with the rules of procedure which it has been mandated to observe.[12] Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[13] In the present case, petitioner filed the petition on May 15, 2002 or thirty days after the reglementary period. Even if petitioner would have been given the maximum allowed extension of fifteen days, the petition would still be late. Bear in mind that the filing of the petition within the reglementary period is jurisdictional. The assailed NLRC resolutions became final upon the failure to file the petition within the prescribed period. It pains us to deny this appeal, but a final judgment is beyond the power of the Court of Appeals, or of this Court, to alter without compelling reason.
	GR NO. 154798 2005-10-20	CRYSTAL SHIPPING v. DEO P. NATIVIDAD QUISUMBING, J.
We cannot fault the appellate court for faithfully complying with the rules of procedure which it has been mandated to observe.[15] Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[16]
	GR No. 140205 2002-09-03	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY DELA CONCHA Y DECIPULO DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
of cases before the appellate courts; they provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner at the prescribed time in an orderly confrontation before a magistrate.[22] The present appeal must, however, fail not in form but rather in the merits.