Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TRINIDAD GO v. VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180651 2014-07-30	NURSERY CARE CORPORATION v. ANTHONY ACEVEDO BERSAMIN, J.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court, given the circumstances obtaining herein and in light of jurisprudence promulgated subsequent to the filing of the petition, deems it fitting and proper to adopt a liberal approach in order to render a just and speedy disposition of the substantive issue at hand. Hence, we resolve, bearing in mind the following pronouncement in Go v. Chaves:[30]
	GR No. 190445 2014-07-23	BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK v. SPS. ENRIQUE GABRIEL LOCSIN AND MA. GERALDINE R. LOCSIN PERALTA, J.
There is no question that respondents were only able to serve on petitioner a single copy of their appellants' brief. However, as mentioned above, settled is the rule that a litigant's failure to furnish his opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant dismissal of that appeal.[34] In the instant case, with much less reason should respondents' appeal be dismissed, because petitioner was served with respondents' brief, albeit only one copy was given to it. The Court would be dwelling too much on technicality if the appeal is dismissed simply on the ground that respondents failed to furnish petitioner with two copies, instead of only one, of their appeal brief. Indeed, there is no showing, and the Court finds none in the instant petition, that such procedural lapse on the part of respondents resulted in material injury to petitioner.
	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In Go v. Chaves,[79] Go's 17-page appellant's brief lacked a subject index. However, Go subsequently filed a subject index. This court excused Go's procedural lapse since the appellant's brief "[consisted] only of 17 pages which [the Court of Appeals] may easily peruse to apprise it of [the case] and of the relief sought."[80] This court ordered the Court of Appeals to resolve Go's appeal "in the interest of justice."[81]
	GR No. 153998 2010-10-06	JORGE L. TIANGCO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
There is no question that the LBP was only able to serve on petitioners one copy of its appellant's brief. However, settled is the rule that a litigant's failure to furnish his opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant dismissal of that appeal.[33] In such an instance, all that is needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his opponent with a copy of his brief. In the instant case, with much less reason should the LBP's appeal be dismissed, because petitioners were served with the LBP's brief, albeit only one copy was given to them. The Court would be dwelling too much on technicality if the appeal is dismissed simply on the ground that LBP failed to furnish petitioners with two copies, instead of only one, of its appeal brief. Indeed, there is no showing, and the Court finds none in the instant petition, that such procedural lapse on the part of the LBP resulted in material injury to the latter.