This case has been cited 24 times or more.
|
2013-04-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| At any rate, granting that technical rules are strictly applied in administrative matters, the Court can exercise its power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. "The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared final."[46] | |||||
|
2013-02-19 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In many instances, the Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[37] The rules can be suspended on the following grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.[38] | |||||
|
2012-06-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is well to be reminded, first of all, that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere instruments designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They are not to be applied with severity and rigidity when such application would clearly defeat the very rationale for their conception and existence. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle.[16] | |||||
|
2010-10-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As we have ruled often enough, rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice.[50] As we explained in Ginete v. Court of Appeals:[51] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Later developments saw the introduction in the Senate of Senate Bill (S. Bill) No. 2157[23] to amend Sec. 450 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. The proposed amendment sought to increase the income requirement to qualify for conversion into a city from PhP 20 million average annual income to PhP 100 million locally generated income. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Apparent from the foregoing are the two-fold purposes for the doctrine of the immutability and inalterability of a final judgment: first, to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and, second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Obviously, the first purpose is in line with the dictum that justice delayed is justice denied. But said dictum presupposes that the court properly appreciates the facts and the applicable law to arrive at a judicious decision. The end should always be the meting out of justice. As to the second purpose, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. It must be adjudicated properly and seasonably to better serve the ends of justice and to place everything in proper perspective. In the process, the possibility that errors may be committed in the rendition of a decision cannot be discounted.[74] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the statutory requirement that when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, the decision attains finality and becomes executory in due course must be strictly enforced as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. The purposes for such statutory requirement are twofold: first, to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and, second, to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which are precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.[23] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that this Court before had sanctioned the recall entries of judgment.[36] The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.[37] The militating concern for the Court en banc in accepting these cases is not so much the particular fate of the parties, but the stability of the Torrens system of registration by ensuring clarity of jurisprudence on the field. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In its Memorandum,[17] Unibancard admits having filed its appeal and appellant's brief beyond the period allowed by the Rules. It explains, however, that a computer virus plagued all the computers of its counsel's law firm and rendered the file containing its appellant's brief inaccessible. It purportedly took Unibancard's counsel 10 days to reconstruct the same. Unibancard agrees with the Court of Appeals that the ruling in Ginete v. Court of Appeals[18] applies squarely to its case. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner likewise cites Ginete v. Court of Appeals[5] wherein the therein petitioners challenged the dismissal by the appellate court of their appeal for their failure to file their Appellants' Brief on time despite the extension given. In directing the appellate court to admit the Appellants' Brief, this Court held that "the lawyer's negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of petitioners is a sufficient reason to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals."[6] This ruling should, however, be read in the context of the other statements of the Court in the same case, to wit:In this Court's perusal of the records of the case, it appears that the lower court disregarded and misappreciated certain documents presented by petitioners in proving filiation as allowed by the Civil Code and the Rules of Court. Second, it seems to have misapplied the established presumptions in cases of marriage and filiation. Third, the forgery of the signature of the Notary Public in one of the questioned Deeds of Sale appears to have been clearly established by petitioners and unsatisfactorily and insufficiently rebutted by private respondents. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final and executory.[15] The right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the statute or the rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business.[16] It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court will opt not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done.[17] The exception does not obtain here. Thus, we are in agreement that the decision of the Labor Arbiter already became final and executory because petitioner failed to file the appeal within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision. | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.[39] In deciding a case, the appellate court has the discretion whether or not to dismiss the same, which discretion must be exercised soundly and in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, taking into account the circumstances of the case.[40] It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a reviewofthe casetoattaintheendsofjustice, ratherthan dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[41] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Even if the June 2, 1989 Decision and July 3, 1989 Order for the issuance of decree in Cadastral Case No. N-4, LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-64 have become final, this Court can still modify them pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations wherever demands of justice so require.[12] We order the amendment or modification of said decision and order for the issuance of decree to reflect the equal one-sixth (1/6) share for each of the heirs of Romana and Benedicto with respect to Lot No. 6416, Ts-222 to avoid further delay and additional legal expenses to the parties. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court will not countenance respondent's failure to observe the reglementary period to file the appellant's brief. Counsels are sworn to protect the interests of their clients and in the process, should be knowlegeable about the rules of procedure to avoid prejudicing the interests of their clients or worse, compromising the integrity of the courts. Ignorance of the procedural rules on their part is tantamount to inexcusable negligence.[17] However, the matter before us does not even call for counsel's knowledge of procedural rules, but merely her managerial skills in keeping track of deadlines for filing necessary pleadings, having difficulty with which, she could have always opted to timely withdraw from the case in order not to prejudice further her client's interest. | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time.[9] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| [T]he lawyer's negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of petitioners is a sufficient reason to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would warrant the suspension of the rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower court's findings of fact, the other elements that should be considered are the following: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, (5) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.[39] (Emphasis supplied.) However, the Ginete case is not a precedent to the case at bar because in said case, the party had no participatory negligence, while in the case at bar, petitioners were negligent in not monitoring the developments in their case. Petitioners' acts are considered inexcusable negligence in line with our ruling in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals (Special Sixth Division), where we explicated the vital participation of the parties in the effective handling of the case by their lawyers, thus:Worth mentioning is the fact that petitioner was likewise not entirely blameless in his alleged deprivation of his day in court. In a recent case, this Court enunciated: | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Private respondent SHAI's stance about the petitioner Republic being barred from raising the issue of inalienability since it failed to plead or assert the same at the pre-trial proceedings is, to a degree, correct. For the general rule, as articulated in Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro,[27] is that the determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of others on appeal. It should be pointed out, however, that the rationale for such preliminary, albeit mandatory, conference is to isolate as far as possible the trial out of the realm of surprises and back-handed maneuverings. And lest it be overlooked, the adverted rule on the procedure to be observed in pre-trials is, as Bergano v. Court of Appeals[28] teaches, citing Gicano v. Gegato,[29] subject to exceptions. And without meaning to diminish the importance of the same rule, the Court is possessed with inherent power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the demands of justice so require.[30] | |||||
|
2006-07-31 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Even assuming arguendo that the order of consolidation did not ipso facto work to revive G.R. No. 156383, this Court is possessed with inherent power to suspend its own rules, to except a particular case or save a petition from its operations wherever the demands of justice so require.[27] | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the assailed decision, indeed, the Court upheld the general rule that the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in the CA does not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal, citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Japson.[10] However, we suspended this rule in order to serve substantial justice in accordance with Ginete vs. Court of Appeals[11] and Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2004-10-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Ginete vs. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court ruled that:In the case at bar, the lawyer's negligence without any participatory negligence on the part of petitioners is a sufficient reason to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would warrant the suspension of the rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower court's findings of fact, the other elements that should be considered are the following: (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (2) the merits of the case, (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, (5) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. | |||||
|
2004-07-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| What petitioner is barred from directly appealing, however, he seeks to overturn through an appeal from another case heard by a different trial court. Obviously, petitioner cannot do this. When a judgment of a lower court becomes final and executory, it is no longer reviewable, directly or indirectly, by a higher court, not even by the Supreme Court.[42] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The rationale for this approach is explained in Ginete v. Court of Appeals [8] | |||||