This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Rules 44 and 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the Court of Appeals.[35] Rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.[36] The Court of Appeals noted in its Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration that despite ample opportunity, petitioners never attempted to file an amended appellants' brief correcting the deficiencies of their brief, but obstinately clung to their argument that their Appellants' Brief substantially complied with the rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal.[37] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| (f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief or of page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44.[17] In Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals[18] and Bucad v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court dismissed the appeal for a similar violation by the appellants of Sec. 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. | |||||