This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Rules of Court has been laid down to insure the orderly conduct of litigation and to protect the substantive rights of all party litigants. It is for this reason that the basic rules on the modes of service provided under Rule 13 of the Rules of Court have been made mandatory and, hence, should be strictly followed. In Marcelino Domingo v. Court of Appeals, [14] the Court wrote: Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states: | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A liberal application of procedural rules requires that: (1) there is justifiable cause or plausible explanation for non-compliance and (2) there is compelling reason to convince the court that the outright dismissal would seriously impair or defeat the administration of justice. [60] In the present case, it is difficult to immediately dismiss the plausibility of the written explanation offered by petitioner when in fact in all stages of the proceedings he has always utilized the post in serving copies of his pleadings on respondent for the very same reasons stated in his petition filed with the Court of Appeals subject of this case. More importantly, the merits of petitioner's cause indeed deserve consideration especially since, as will be discussed, the controversy involved is far removed from the limited jurisdiction of the MeTC. | |||||