This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under said rule, personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is a mandatory mode, especially when the peculiar circumstances of the case -- such as the proximity of the office of a party's counsel to the court or to the office of the opposing party's counsel -- make such mode practicable.[19] If another mode is employed, there must be attached to the pleading or paper, a written explanation of such recourse. Omission of a written explanation will give the court cause to expunge the pleading or paper not personally served or filed.[20] And ordinarily, such exercise of discretion by the court will not be overruled on appeal, except when: a) on the face of the affidavit of service, it is patent that personal service and filing is impractical, such as when the parties or their counsels live in different provinces;[21] b) there is prima facie merit in the pleading or paper expunged;[22] and c) the issue raised therein is of substantial importance.[23] Under these exceptional circumstances the lack of written explanation may be excused and the pleading or paper served or filed, accepted. | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules.[22] Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost, more so, as in this case, where petitioners violated the same Rule not only once but twice. The utter disregard of the rules made by petitioners cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction and substantial compliance.[23] Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality not only to explain and justify his failure to abide by the rules but also to avoid committing the same mistake in the future. Hence, petitioners' repeated failure to comply with the provisions of Section 11, Rule 13 is enough basis to dismiss the present petition. | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is that the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,[12] in this case, herein petitioner, it being the employment agency or recruitment entity, and agent of the foreign principal, Salim Al Yami Est.,[13] which recruited respondent. In Jimenez vs. NLRC,[14] which involves a claim for unpaid wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against an employer, the Court ruled that where a person is sued for a debt admits that the debt was originally owed, and pleads payment in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such payment. This is based on the principle of evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegations. Since petitioner asserts that respondent has already been fully paid of his stipulated salary, the burden is upon petitioner to prove such fact of full payment. | |||||