Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLICITOR GENERAL v. METROPOLITAN MANILA AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 178158 2009-12-04	STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED CARPIO, J.
Besides, in the interest of substantial justice and for compelling reasons, such as the nature and importance of the issues raised in this case,[30] this Court must take cognizance of Sison's action. This Court should exercise its prerogative to set aside technicalities in the Rules, because after all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of justice requires is well recognized.[31] In Solicitor General v. The Metropolitan Manila Authority,[32] this Court held:Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning `pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.' In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules. x x x
	GR NOS. 169295-96 2006-11-20	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. ERLINDA CASTANEDA PUNO, J.
It is well-settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases.[15] Labor cases must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[16] Rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.[17] Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[18]
	GR NO. 153951 2005-08-29	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Although belatedly filed, the Resolution of the PNB Board amply demonstrates Mrs. Domitila A. Amon's authority to sign and verify the instant petition. PNB likewise was not obligated to disclose the alluded case pending before the Court of Appeals as it was not initiated by the bank and, more importantly, the subject matter and the properties involved therein are altogether different.[64] It is well to remember at this point that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[65] In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice.[66] And the power of the Court to except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes of justice require it cannot be questioned.[67]
	GR NO. 142675 2005-08-22	VICENTE AGOTE Y MATOL v. MANUEL F. LORENZO GARCIA, J.
Be that as it may, the Court feels that it must squarely address the issue raised in this case regarding the retroactivity of Rep. Act No. 8294, what with the reality that the provisions thereof are undoubtedly favorable to petitioner. For this purpose, then, we shall exercise our prerogative to set aside technicalities in the Rules and "hold the bull by its horns", so to speak. After all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of justice requires is not without legal authority or precedent. In Solicitor General, et. al. vs. The Metropolitan Manila Authority,[15] we held:Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning 'pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.' In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules. xxx
	GR No. 153951 2005-07-29	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANAO MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Although belatedly filed, the Resolution of the PNB Board amply demonstrates Mrs. Domitila A. Amon's authority to sign and verify the instant petition. PNB likewise was not obligated to disclose the alluded case pending before the Court of Appeals as it was not initiated by the bank and, more importantly, the subject matter and the properties involved therein are altogether different.[64] It is well to remember at this point that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[65] In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice.[66] And the power of the Court to except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes of justice require it cannot be questioned.[67]
	GR No. 142675 2005-07-22	VICENTE AGOTE Y MATOL v. MANUEL F. LORENZO GARCIA, J.
Be that as it may, the Court feels that it must squarely address the issue raised in this case regarding the retroactivity of Rep. Act No. 8294, what with the reality that the provisions thereof are undoubtedly favorable to petitioner. For this purpose, then, we shall exercise our prerogative to set aside technicalities in the Rules and "hold the bull by its horns", so to speak. After all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of justice requires is not without legal authority or precedent. In Solicitor General, et. al. vs. The Metropolitan Manila Authority,[15] we held:Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning `pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.' In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules. xxx
	GR NO. 118127 2005-04-12	CITY OF MANILA v. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO TINGA, J.
Not only does the Ordinance contravene the Code, it likewise runs counter to the provisions of P.D. 499. As correctly argued by MTDC, the statute had already converted the residential Ermita-Malate area into a commercial area. The decree allowed the establishment and operation of all kinds of commercial establishments except warehouse or open storage depot, dump or yard, motor repair shop, gasoline service station, light industry with any machinery or funeral establishment. The rule is that for an ordinance to be valid and to have force and effect, it must not only be within the powers of the council to enact but the same must not be in conflict with or repugnant to the general law.[121] As succinctly illustrated in Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority:[122]