Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. VALENTINO ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ v. CA AND SPS. FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193271 2015-10-05	LOLITA M. SANTIAGO v. SILVESTRE H. BELLO IV BRION, J.
We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause; they should be free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities.[4] However, it is an equally settled rule that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is required to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[5]
	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
In Ortiz v. Court of Appeals[45] and similar rulings, the following has always been pointed out: The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioners here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.
	GR No. 155806 2008-04-08	TIBLE v. ROYAL SAVINGS REYES, R.T., J.
As a general rule, these requirements are mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. While the Court is not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain his failure to comply with the rules. There must be at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[37] (Emphasis supplied) In Ortiz v. Court of Appeals,[38] the CA dismissed the petition for review outright for failure of petitioners to sign the certification of non-forum shopping. The certification was signed only by their lawyer. In affirming the dismissal of the petition, the Court said:Regrettably, we find substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance as provided for in Circular No. 28-91. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. To merit the Court's consideration, petitioner here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice. However, the petitioner did not give any explanation to warrant their exemption from the strict application of the rule. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[39] (Emphasis supplied) Too, the party litigant must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[40] The Court's pronouncements in Pet Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[41] are illustrative:
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
On the matter of appeal, we ruled on several occasions that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.[15] The party who seeks to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so results in the loss of that right.[16]
	GR NO. 143558 2005-08-19	ISIDRO LUSTAÑA v. ARACELI JIMENA-LAZO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required. Their application may be relaxed only when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and substantial justice,[4] which is not present here. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[5]
	GR NO. 148482 2005-08-12	JOSEPH DORMAN D. TAMAYO v. JOSE D. TAMAYO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The right to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[4]
	GR No. 161776 2004-10-22	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. DAVID E. ESERJOSE AND ZENAIDA ESERJOSE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is a procedural remedy of statutory origin and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[20] Moreover, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is essential; noncompliance with this legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[21] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the case.[22]
	GR No. 144134 2003-11-11	MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
It is settled that the requirement in the Rules that the certification of non- forum shopping should be executed and signed by the plaintiff or the principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to do so.[18] The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.[19] In the case of natural persons, the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. However, in the case of the corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed, on behalf of the corporate entity, only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations, as artificial persons, cannot personally do the task themselves.[20] In this case, not only was the originally appended certification signed by counsel, but in its motion for reconsideration, still petitioner utterly failed to show that Ms. Rosanna Ignacio, its Personnel Manager who signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached thereto, was duly authorized for this purpose. It cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the requirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[21]