This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is, however, too late for Romago to assail the Resolution dated 19 September 2007 of this Court reinstating the Petition for Review of SK-KG, having failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Resolution. Moreover, considering the enormous amounts involved in the case at bar, it is only proper for the Court to determine the case on the merits. Time and again, this Court has stressed that the primordial concern of rules of procedure is to secure substantial justice. Otherwise stated, they are but a means to an end. Hence, a rigid and technical enforcement of these rules which overrides the ends of justice shall not be countenanced. Substance cannot be subordinated to procedure when to do so would deprive a party of his day in court on the basis solely of a technicality.[7] | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' assertion has no merit. All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence.[58] In petitioners' answer, there was no denial under oath of the due execution and genuineness of the deed of sale. Thus, the deed of sale is not only incorporated into respondents' complaint, it is also deemed admitted by petitioners.[59] This has the effect of relieving respondents from the duty of expressly presenting such document as evidence. The court, for the proper resolution of the case, may and should consider without the introduction of evidence the facts admitted by the parties.[60] | |||||
|
2005-06-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners averred that they failed to append to their petition the affidavit of service due to an excusable oversight considering the time constraint in filing the petition with its voluminous annexes; that they have a meritorious case as evidenced by the final Decision in DARAB Case No. 305 declaring them as CARP beneficiaries of the disputed property; and that there would be a denial of substantial justice if their petition would be dismissed merely by reason of technicality.[10] Citing previous rulings of this Court[11] that procedural rules should be liberally construed in order to promote substantial justice, petitioners prayed that the affidavit of proof of service attached to their motion be admitted and that their petition be given due course. | |||||