This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-04-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Third, the records show that the counsel for the spouses Ley received the 18 January 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals on 24 January 2005.[32] Their motion for reconsideration submitted on 9 February 2005 was, therefore, filed out of time. While it is true that the belated filing of a motion for reconsideration necessarily suggests that the decision sought to be reconsidered has become final and executory,[33] the spouses Ley should have been accorded the same spirit of liberality which the appellate court extended to UBP by giving due course to UBP's petition for certiorari despite its failure to file the requisite motion for reconsideration with the lower court. Rules are designed to aid the courts in the dispensation of justice. When there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice.[34] In this case, the rigid observance of the rules would mean that the legal mess spawned by the imprecise fallo of the appellate court's decision would not be untangled and miscarriage of justice would ensue. | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| People v. Flores[14] is indubitably in point and on all fours with the instant case to correct the injustice resulting from the improvident waiver of the right to present defense evidence. In that case we ruled | |||||