This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-08-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Citing De Guia v. De Guia[30] the Court, in Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[31] held that even if there was complete non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum-shopping, the Court may still proceed to decide the case on the merits pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules on grounds of substantial justice and apparent merit of the case. | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There were also cases where there was complete non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping and yet the Court proceeded to decide the case on the merits in order to serve the ends of substantial justice.[12] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There were even cases where we held that there was complete non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping, but we still proceeded to decide the case on the merits. In De Guia v. De Guia,[20] petitioners raised in their Petition for Review the allowance of respondents' Appeal Brief which did not contain a certificate against forum shopping. We held therein that:With regard to the absence of a certification of non-forum shopping, substantial justice behooves us to agree with the disquisition of the appellate court. We do not condone the shortcomings of respondents' counsel, but we simply cannot ignore the merits of their claim. Indeed, it has been held that "[i]t is within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules in a particular case in order to do justice." | |||||
|
2005-08-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, we note that the proceedings before the lower court happened in the years 1994 to 1995, and thus governed by the old Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the old rules, particularly Rule 20, Section 1,[12] a notice of pre-trial must be served on the party affected, separately from his counsel,[13] otherwise the proceedings will be null and void.[14] The general rule that notice to counsel is notice to parties has been held insufficient and inadequate for purposes of pre-trial,[15] such that the trial courts uniformly serve such notice to party through or care of his counsel at counsel's address with the express imposition upon counsel of the obligation of notifying the party of the date, time and place of the pre-trial conference and assuring that the party either appear thereat or deliver to counsel a written authority to represent the party with power to compromise the case, with the warning that a party who fails to do so may be non-suited or declared in default.[16] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, we note that the proceedings before the lower court happened in the years 1994 to 1995, and thus governed by the old Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the old rules, particularly Rule 20, Section 1,[12] a notice of pre-trial must be served on the party affected, separately from his counsel,[13] otherwise the proceedings will be null and void.[14] The general rule that notice to counsel is notice to parties has been held insufficient and inadequate for purposes of pre-trial,[15] such that the trial courts uniformly serve such notice to party through or care of his counsel at counsel's address with the express imposition upon counsel of the obligation of notifying the party of the date, time and place of the pre-trial conference and assuring that the party either appear thereat or deliver to counsel a written authority to represent the party with power to compromise the case, with the warning that a party who fails to do so may be non-suited or declared in default.[16] | |||||