This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| We have ruled that the general rule is that non-compliance or a defect in the certification is not curable by its subsequent submission or correction. However, there are cases where we exercised leniency and relaxed the rules on the ground of substantial compliance, the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.[36] The rules on forum-shopping are designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subve1i its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."[37] | |||||
|
2004-08-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is now incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as Rule 7, Section 5. It is basic that the Rules "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[31] Otherwise put, the rule requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading, "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."[32] | |||||
|
2001-06-28 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| However, with respect to the contents of the certification, the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded.[15] It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[16] | |||||