This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Rules of procedure are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice. They should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense.[70] For reasons of justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the stringent rules governing appeals.[71] It has, in the past, refused to sacrifice justice for technicality.[72] | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that while the Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also, in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[34] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) For reasons of justice and equity, this Court has allowed exceptions to the stringent rules governing appeals.[35] It has, in the past, refused to sacrifice justice for technicality.[36] | |||||
|
2003-10-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The argument is not tenable. Firstly, objection to the documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered.[38] Since the petitioners did not even bother to object to the documents at the time they were offered in evidence,[39] it is now too late in the day for them to question their admissibility. Secondly, the documents were identified during the Pre-Trial, marked as Exhibits "2" and "3" and testified on by respondent Tomasa.[40] Thirdly, the questioned deeds, being public documents as they were duly notarized, are admissible in evidence without further proof of their due execution and are conclusive as to the truthfulness of their contents, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[41] A public document executed and attested through the intervention of the notary public is evidence of the facts therein expressed in clear, unequivocal manner.[42] | |||||