This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to say that workload and resignation of the lawyer handling the case are insufficient reasons to justify the relaxation of the procedural rules.[16] Heavy workload is relative and often self-serving.[17] | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| For the same reasons, the Court finds that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 7150-R was unwarranted. It is true that while it was incumbent for petitioner to have informed the trial court of Civil Case No. 5703-R and the pending DENR Protest, this Court is inclined to forego petitioner's failure to abide by the requirements of the 1997 Rules regarding certifications against forum-shopping, favor of deciding the case on the basis of merit, seeing, as the Court does, that a rigid interpretation of the 1997 Rules would result in substantial injustice to petitioner. The circumstances require that substance must prevail over form, keeping in mind, as the Court has held countless times, that procedural rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice; their application should be relaxed when they hinder instead of promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should as much as possible be resolved on the merits and not on technicalities.[44] Besides, "the Rules of Civil Procedure on forum shopping are not always applied with inflexibility."[45] | |||||
|
2012-08-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Note that Labao explicitly recognized the general rule that the sixty (60)-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is non-extendible, only that there are certain exceptional circumstances, which may call for its non-observance. Even more recently, in Mid-Islands Power Generation Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court, taking into consideration Laguna Metts Corporation and Domdom, "relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC in order to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public interest" and affirmed the extension granted by the CA to the respondent Power One Corporation due to the exceptional nature of the case and the strong public interest involved. | |||||