Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 201234 2014-03-17	HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA MENDOZA, J.
In Montajes v. People of the Philippines,[15] petitioner therein, due to erroneous computation, filed his petition for review before the CA two (2) days after the expiration of the requested 15-day extension period. The Court held in that case that being a few days late in the filing of the petition for review did not automatically warrant its dismissal and where strong considerations of substantial justice were manifest in the petition, the stringent application of technical rules could be relaxed in the exercise of equity jurisdiction. It found that the circumstances obtaining in that case merited the liberal application of the rule absent any intention to cause delay.
	GR No. 201234 2014-03-17	HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA MENDOZA, J.
Again, granting arguendo that there was non-compliance with the verification requirement, the rule is that courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses which do not really impair the proper administration of justice. After all, the higher objective of procedural rule is to ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[20]
	GR No. 187801 2012-09-13	HEIRS OF LEONARDO BANAAG v. AMS FARMING CORPORATION REYES, J.
Again, the Court takes a liberal stance. Oft-repeated is the rule that being a few days late in the filing of the petition for review does not automatically warrant the dismissal thereof.[38] Moreover, strong considerations of substantial justice manifest in the petition deem it imperative for the Court to relax the stringent application of technical rules in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.[39] After all, the policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal.[40] A definitive settlement of the ownership over the contested crops and improvements is essential to the effective implementation of the CARL particularly, the payment of just compensation. Such compensation entails an enormous amount of money from the coffers of the government and it is only proper for the Court to ensure that such amount is paid to the rightful owner.