Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. FELIX S. IMPERIAL JR.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173375 2008-09-25	LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been said time and again that the perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional.[35] But it is always in the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.[36] This Court is mindful of the policy of affording litigants the amplest opportunity for the determination of their cases on the merits[37] and of dispensing with technicalities whenever compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it.[38]
	GR NO. 159593 2006-10-16	CIR v. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed in the Constitution which guarantees that "all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies." The adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. There have been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.[16] The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts.[17]
	GR No. 147227 2004-11-19	MARIA REMEDIOS ARGANA v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J,
Moreover, it is an established rule that the State cannot be estopped by the mistakes of its agents.[57] Respondent cannot be bound by a manifestly unjust compromise agreement reviewed on its behalf and entered into by its representatives from the PCGG who apparently were not looking after respondent's best interests.
	GR No. 148189 2004-11-11	EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT PANGANIBAN, J.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting an appeal, especially on grounds of substantial justice,[15] or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues.[16] Verily, this Court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to exempt a case from their rigid operation when warranted by compelling reasons and the requirements of justice.[17]
	GR No. 137771 2002-06-06	PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Confronted with issues of this nature, this Court is mindful of the policy of affording litigants the amplest opportunity for the determination of their cases on the merits[22] and of dispensing with technicalities whenever compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it.[23]