Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALAN M. LOYOLA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 147478 2006-07-17	METRO DRUG DISTRIBUTION v. . CORONA, J.
Petitioners maintain that the procedural requirements they allegedly disregarded applied only to original complaints or petitions. Thus, even if they wanted to comply, they deliberately did not do so in their motion for reconsideration. We find this explanation unacceptable. In justifying their non-compliance, petitioners lost sight of the fact that subsequently conforming with the rules could have cured the procedural defects of their petition and could have provided a basis for reconsideration. In many instances, courts have reconsidered petitions initially deficient in form upon an erring party's satisfactory explanation and subsequent compliance with the rules.[19]
	GR NO. 148862 2005-08-11	RUBIN TAD-Y Y BABOR v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Tad-y marked and offered in evidence the transcript of stenographic notes[57] taken during the trial of September 25, 1995 in Criminal Case No. 17186.
	GR NO. 141973 2005-06-28	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. CIR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the second issue, petitioner explains that: its counsel was of the belief that he was authorized to execute the affidavit of non-forum shopping; in any event, its counsel immediately attached to the motion a copy of the affidavit of non-forum shopping executed by petitioner's President, Ramon C. Avecilla as soon as he learned of his error; and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 should be liberally construed following Maricalum Mining Corp. vs. NLRC,[20] Loyola vs. Court of Appeals,[21] and Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations.[22]
	GR No. 158311 2004-11-17	HUNTINGTON STEEL PRODUCTS v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Nevertheless, in Loyola v. Court of Appeals,[17] we held that substantial compliance with the requirement of certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient. Here, we find that the certification of non-forum shopping was not filed simultaneously with the initiatory pleading. But we held that the filing of the certification within the reglementary period of filing the initiatory pleading was substantial compliance. The fact that the Circular requires strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[18]
	GR No. 147394 2004-08-11	SPS. MANUEL AND ROSEMARIE WEE v. ROSARIO D. GALVEZ QUISUMBING, J.
The fact that the Circular requires that it be strictly complied with merely underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[30]