This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On the postulate then that first, the finality of the November 18, 2008 Decision has yet to set in, the issuance of the precipitate[16] entry of judgment notwithstanding, and second, the deadlocked vote on the second motion for reconsideration did not definitely settle the constitutionality of the cityhood laws, the Court is inclined to take another hard look at the underlying decision. Without belaboring in their smallest details the arguments for and against the procedural dimension of this disposition, it bears to stress that the Court has the power to suspend its own rules when the ends of justice would be served thereby.[17] In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application must be eschewed, if they result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.[18] Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules or excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require.[19] | |||||
|
2008-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, courts may take exceptions. In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, if they result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be eschewed. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.[85] Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require.[86] | |||||