This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We recognize the importance of procedural rules in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice.[10] However, the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, as they are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.[11] That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence.[12] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency.[19] As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.[20] Aside from being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest. Hence, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are special and important reasons therefor.[21] In Fortich v. Corona[22] we stated: "[T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been | |||||