This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The use of "may," in the above quoted section signifies permissiveness and gives the court discretion whether or not to consider a pleading as not filed. While it is true that procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and speedy administration of justice, in this case, the rigid application of Section 11, Rule 13 may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.[29] | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Inherent in the power of DAR to undertake land distribution for agrarian reform purposes is its authority to identify qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.[24] Corollary to it is also the authority of DAR to select a substitute to a previously designated beneficiary who may have surrendered or abandoned his claim, and to reallocate the land awarded to the latter in favor of the former. For this purpose, DAR is governed by the requirements and procedure set forth in DAR Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 4,[25] series of 1983, in relation to Ministry of Agrarian Reform Circular No. 8-80, specifically: 1) that the waiver/surrender be made in favor of the government such as through the SN;[26] 2) that the SN recommend other qualified beneficiaries;[27] and 3) that, based on an investigation or hearing, an order or decision be rendered declaring the disqualification and removal of the abandoning/surrendering beneficiary.[28] Under paragraph V of MC No. 4, such selection/reallocation order issued by DAR becomes final and executory upon the lapse of 30 days from receipt thereof by the beneficiaries and/or parties-in-interest. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Musa v. Amor,[24] which also involved the question of no personal service, we said: ... Considering the distance between the Court of Appeals and Donsol, Sorsogon where the petition was posted, clearly, service by registered mail would have entailed considerable time, effort and expense. A written explanation why service was not done personally might have been superfluous. In any case, as the rule is so worded with the use of "may," signifying permissiveness, a violation thereof gives the court discretion whether or not to consider that paper as not filed. While it is true that procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and speedy administration of justice, rigid application of Section 11, Rule 13 may be relaxed in this case in the interest of substantial justice.[25] Conformably with the Musa v. Amor ruling, we hold that in the present case, there was substantial compliance. Considering the distance between the Court of Appeals and the Province of Antique where the petition was posted, a written explanation why service was not done personally might have been superfluous. In the interest of substantial justice, a rigid application of Section 11, Rule 13 could be relaxed in this case. | |||||