This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We also observe that the rule that a petition should have been brought under Rule 65 instead of under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (or vice versa) is not inflexible or rigid.[36] The inflexibility or rigidity of application of the rules of procedure is eschewed in order to serve the higher ends of justice. Thus, substance is given primacy over form, for it is paramount that the rules of procedure are not applied in a very rigid technical sense, but used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim is defeated.[37] Verily, the strict application of procedural technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case on the merits.[38] To institute a guideline, therefore, the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the rules of procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[39] | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB decision. While we lament the lapse of time this forcible entry case has been pending resolution, we are not in a position to resolve the dispute between the parties since the evidence required in courts is different from that of administrative agencies.[43] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the second issue, referral to the DAR is no longer necessary. P.D. No. 316 and P.D. No. 1038 which required the referral of a land dispute case to the DAR for the preliminary determination of the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship has indeed been repealed by Section 76[35] of Rep. Act No. 6657 in 1988.[36] Thus, the court may proceed to hear the case. However, it still has to ascertain that the case does not involve an agrarian dispute before taking cognizance thereof.[37] | |||||