This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure disregards the fundamental aim of procedure to serve as an aid to justice, not as a means for its frustration, and the objective of the Rules of Court to afford litigants just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their controversy. Thus, excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure or lapses in the literal or rigid observance of a procedural rule or non-jurisdictional deadline provided therein should be overlooked and brushed aside as trivial and indecisive in the interest of fair play and justice when public policy is not involved, no prejudice has been caused the adverse party and the court has not been deprived of its authority or jurisdiction. (Citations omitted)[25] Respondent itself admits that the issues in CA-G.R. SP. No. 88314 and in the present case are the same.[26] The suit is already before us under Rule 65.[27] To dismiss this petition on technical grounds and wait for it to be elevated anew under the same grounds and arguments would be to sanction a circuitous procedure that would serve no purpose except prolong its resolution. | |||||
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| On 25 January 2005, respondent filed a Petition[15] with the Court of Appeals to restrain the scheduled execution sale and to nullify the orders of the CIAC issued pursuant thereto.[16] In said Petition, respondent claimed that the sheriffs exceeded their authority when they included in the notice of execution sale five condominium units fully paid for by its buyers. Respondent also asserted that the inclusion of three additional units in the levy on execution was excessive, thereby rendering the same void. | |||||