This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-08-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| A perusal of the said petition reveals that Manuel imputed grave abuse of discretion to the lower court for annulling his marriage on account of his alleged homosexuality. This is not the first time that this Court is faced with a similar situation. In Nerves v. Civil Service Commission,[37] petitioner Delia R. Nerves elevated to the CA a Civil Service Commission (CSC) decision suspending her for six (6) months. The CSC ruled Nerves, a public school teacher, is deemed to have already served her six-month suspension during the pendency of the case. Nevertheless, she is ordered reinstated without back wages. On appeal, Nerves stated in her petition, inter alia: This is a petition for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines and under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2007-07-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This Court has indeed, in several instances, pronounced that the rules on technicality can be brushed aside in order to serve the ends of substantial justice.[40] Unfortunately for petitioner, however, the findings of the Court of Appeals as to the validity of his removal from service due to AWOL are in accordance with law and the records of the case. | |||||
|
2004-10-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are mindful of our rulings in the cases cited by petitioners where we held that the interests of substantial justice and equity prevailed over the constraints of technicalities. A careful reading of the cases cited by petitioners show that exceptional circumstances were obtaining in those cases. In the case of Ace Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[23] we found merit in the case of the appealing party considering the disparity between the $450.00 unpaid vacation leave pay awarded by the labor arbiter and the $36,000.00 award granted by the NLRC. We ruled that the appeal may be considered even if the requirement regarding proof of service was not followed since the subsequent attaching of the affidavit of service to the motion for reconsideration was substantial compliance of the requirement of the rules. Likewise, in Nerves v. Civil Service Commission,[24] we allowed the petition notwithstanding that it was made through a wrong mode of appeal because the petition substantially complied with the Rules. More importantly, the appeal on its face appears to be impressed with merit. In Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals,[25] we stated that as a rule, periods prescribed to do certain acts must be followed unless, under exceptional circumstances, a delay in the filing of an appeal may be excused on grounds of substantial justice. We took exception in the delay in that case because "strong considerations of substantial significance [were] manifest, as attested to by the appellate court's findings". | |||||