This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In refusing to resuscitate Civil Case No. 01-102 198 despite a showing that there was an excusable ground for the [herein respondent]'s absence during the pre-trial, the respondent judge manifested a dire fixation towards procedural perfection. Indeed, the extraordinary writ of certiorari would lie when a trier's obsession with the stringent tenets of technicality would occasion an injustice against a party litigant. Litigation is not a game of technicality, in which one more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfection of forms and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts.[17] | |||||
|
2008-12-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With the pronouncement that both Dy and Dyson Corporation are subsidiarily liable for the damages caused to the spouses Delos Santos, let this much prolonged litigation be put to an end. The counsels of the parties are herby warned not to employ any procedural tactics that would further delay the execution of the RTC Decision dated 27 September 2002 in Criminal Case No. 1116-V-99. Litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other.[32] In the words of Mr. Justice Malcolm, "More important than anything else, is that the court should be right and to render justice where justice is due."[33] | |||||
|
2004-10-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Seeking relief from Section 2, Rule 1 (now Section 6[9]), and Section 2, Rule 20 (now Section 4, Rule 18[10]) of the Revised Rules of Court, and invoking our pronouncements in Rinconada Telephone Company, Inc. v. Buenviaje,[11] Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[12] and Alonso v. Villamor,[13] the petitioner asserts that although respondent judge has the discretion to declare a defendant in default for failure to appear during pre-trial conference, the strict, rigid and arbitrary application thereof denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present its meritorious defense, refute the evidence of the private respondents, present his own, and exercise his right to due process. The petitioner contends that the rules should be liberally construed in order to protect the substantive rights of the parties. | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A litigation is a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities, asks that justice be done on the merits.[10] Hence, Rule 1, Section 6[11] of the Rules of Court mandates that rules of procedure shall be liberally interpreted. In the instant case, we agree with petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in stressing too much petitioners' failure to comply with technicalities. We cannot attribute to petitioners the perceived defects on the attached copies of the trial court's orders because petitioners did not have control over their preparation. Moreover, Rule 131, Section 3 (ff) [12] of the Rules of Court lays the presumption in petitioners' favor that they followed the pertinent rules on attaching certified copies of the orders subject of their petition below. As private respondent failed to show evidence to rebut this presumption, the presumption must stand. | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| . . .The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice[35] "A litigation is not a game of technicalities."[36] "Law suits unlike duels are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts."[37] Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality.[38] Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[39]. . the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice.[40] It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of justice. (emphasis and italics ours) Second, while there is no dispute that mere inadequacy of the price per se will not set aside a judicial sale of real property, nevertheless, where the inadequacy of the price is purely shocking to the conscience,[41] such that the mind revolts at it and such that a reasonable man would neither directly or indirectly be likely to consent to it,[42] the same will be set aside.[43] Thus, in one case,[44] the judicial sale of land worth P60,000.00 for P867.00 was considered shocking to the conscience. So also, the sale of properties at around 10% of their values, as when a radio worth P1,000.00 was sold for P100.00 and a matrimonial bed costing P500.00 was sold for P50.00, the price was held to be grossly inadequate.[45] How much more the judicial sale of two (2) prime commercial lots located in Guadalupe, Makati, conservatively valued at P500,000.00 in 1987, to satisfy a money judgment of P57,396.85? | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Technically, the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal for failure to file appellant's brief on time.[16] However, the dismissal is directory, not mandatory.[17] It is not the ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal. "The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed does not have the effect of dismissing the appeal automatically."[18] The court has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty.[19] The "discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case."[20] Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice.[21] "A litigation is not a game of technicalities."[22] "Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts."[23] Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality.[24] Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[25] Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice.[26] It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. | |||||