This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[24] Piglas-Kamao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Mendoza v. David,[26] the Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized.[27] Noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements when they filed their motion for reconsideration.[28] | |||||
|
2005-03-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that his petition should not have been dismissed for lack of technical requirements by the Court of Appeals. He states that Section 1, Rule 65 does not specify what documents or pleadings are relevant or pertinent to the petition. Thus, petitioner is accorded latitude in determining what documents or pleadings are to be filed. He cites Section 6 of Rule 1[8] and Section 6 of Rule 51[9] of the 1997 Rules of Procedure as well as our ruling in Piglas-Kamao (Sari-Sari Chapter) v. NLRC[10] to support his appeal for a liberal construction of the rules. | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The allowance of the petition on the ground of substantial compliance with the Rules is not a novel occurrence in our jurisdiction. As consistently held by the Court, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice.[15] In Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court because the petitioner failed to attach to the petition a certified true copy of the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision in addition to the certified true copy of the assailed decision of the RTC. Holding that the Court of Appeals should have given due course to the petition considering that petitioner subsequently submitted a certified true copy of the decision of the MeTC, we held:Petitioner is right that the MeTC's decision cannot be considered a "disputed decision." The phrase is the equivalent of "ruling, order or decision appealed from" in Rule 32, §2 of the 1964 Rules made applicable to appeals from decisions of the then Courts of First Instance to the Court of Appeals by R.A. No. 296, as amended by R.A. No. 5433. Since petitioner was not appealing from the decision of the MeTC in her favor, she was not required to attach a certified true copy - but only a true or plain copy - of the aforesaid decision of the MeTC. The reason is that inclusion of the decision is part of the requirement to attach to the petition for review "other material portion of the record as would support the allegations of the petition." Indeed, petitioner referred to the MeTC decision in many parts of her petition for review in the Court of Appeals for support of her theory. | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz[28] and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission[29], we ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements. We ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions "the appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case". | |||||