This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, in numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon. It is better to excuse a technical lapse rather than dispose of a case on technicality, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[37] In the present case, a dismissal on a technicality would only mean a new round of litigation between the same parties for the same cause of action, over the same subject matter. Thus, notwithstanding petitioner's wrong mode of appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have so easily dismissed the petition. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Our rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious cases which clog the court dockets and do little more than waste the courts' time.[26] These technical and procedural rules, however, are intended to ensure, rather than suppress, substantial justice.[27] A deviation from their rigid enforcement may thus be allowed, as petitioners should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose their property on mere technicalities.[28] We held in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corporation [29] that: Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to due process. In numerous cases, this Court has allowed liberal construction of the rules when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity. | |||||