This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot sanction Dan's utter disregard of procedural rules. It must be emphasized that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, the Court allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, it never intends to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that 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. Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules, for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[24] It is this symbiosis between form and substance that guarantees that discernible result.[25] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner is burdened to establish that the respondent tribunal acted without jurisdiction, meaning, that it does not have the legal power to determine the case; or that it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, meaning, that having been clothed with power to determine the case, it oversteps its authority as determined by law, or that it committed grave abuse of its discretion or acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[49] | |||||