This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This case, however, is an exception. In many instances, the Court has ruled that technical rules of procedures should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of justice. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal cause. [28] | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| This rule, however, is not absolute. In the 2011 case Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated,[14] this Court ruled that where the petitioner clearly mentioned that the parties may be served with the court's notices or processes through their respective counsels, whose addresses have been clearly specified as in this case, this act would constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 3, Rule 46. The Court further observed that the notice required by law is notice to counsel if the party has already appeared by counsel, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Santos v. Litton Mills, [51] where the petitioner therein had initially filed a petition before the Court of Appeals with a defective verification and certification, this Court noted that said defect has been corrected when after dismissal, said petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and attached to it a verification and certification sufficient in form; because there was subsequent compliance in that case, the Court eagerly adopted liberality to secure the greater interest of justice and held that the Court of Appeals should have given due course to said petition in the first place. | |||||