This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Even assuming, for argument's sake, that P.D. No. 946 is applicable, the rule prohibiting a motion to dismiss is not inflexible and admits of exception. The rule is that technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case on its merits.[22] It should be borne in mind that the prohibition on the filing of a motion to dismiss under P.D. No. 946 was meant to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive disposition of agrarian cases.[23] In this case, the filing of the motions to dismiss did not unduly delay the disposition of the case. In fact, said motions brought into light the flaws in the appropriateness of the petition for just compensation filed by the petitioners and readily provided the SAC reasonable basis for its dismissal. In Tanpingco v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[24] the Court took exception to the literal interpretation of Section 17 of P.D. No. 946 and sustained the grant of a motion to dismiss, viz: We, therefore, take exception to the literal application of Section 17 of P.D. No. 946 for as stated in Salonga v. Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. (88 Phil. 125 [1951], an action is brought for a practical purpose, nay to obtain actual and positive relief. If the party sued upon is not the proper party, any decision that may be rendered against him would be futile, for it cannot be enforced or executed. The effort that may be employed will be wasted.[25] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Even assuming, for argument's sake, that P.D. No. 946 is applicable, the rule prohibiting a motion to dismiss is not inflexible and admits of exception. The rule is that technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case on its merits.[22] It should be borne in mind that the prohibition on the filing of a motion to dismiss under P.D. No. 946 was meant to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive disposition of agrarian cases.[23] In this case, the filing of the motions to dismiss did not unduly delay the disposition of the case. In fact, said motions brought into light the flaws in the appropriateness of the petition for just compensation filed by the petitioners and readily provided the SAC reasonable basis for its dismissal. In Tanpingco v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[24] the Court took exception to the literal interpretation of Section 17 of P.D. No. 946 and sustained the grant of a motion to dismiss, viz: We, therefore, take exception to the literal application of Section 17 of P.D. No. 946 for as stated in Salonga v. Warner Barnes and Co., Ltd. (88 Phil. 125 [1951], an action is brought for a practical purpose, nay to obtain actual and positive relief. If the party sued upon is not the proper party, any decision that may be rendered against him would be futile, for it cannot be enforced or executed. The effort that may be employed will be wasted.[25] | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A suit may be dismissed if the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest.[53] | |||||