This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[20] Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court.[21] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[22] The attestation on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current petition.[23] | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the CA's finding, the Court finds that the circumstances of this case do not necessitate the relaxation of the rules. There was no proof of authority submitted, even belatedly, to show subsequent compliance with the requirement of the law. Neither was there a copy of the board resolution or secretary's certificate subsequently submitted to the trial court that would attest to the fact that Atty. Lat was indeed authorized to file said complaint and sign the verification and certification against forum shopping, nor did respondent satisfactorily explain why it failed to comply with the rules. Thus, there exists no cogent reason for the relaxation of the rule on this matter. Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[25] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Verification. This is required to secure an assurance that the allegations have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative;[14] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The parties must diligently and conscientiously present all arguments and available evidences in support of their respective positions to the court before the case is deemed submitted for judgment. Only under exceptional circumstances may the court receive new evidence after having rendered judgment;[18] otherwise, its judgment may never attain finality since the parties may continually refute the findings therein with further evidence. Alamayri failed to provide any explanation why she did not present her evidence earlier. Merely invoking that the ends of justice would have been best served if she was allowed to present additional evidence is not sufficient to justify deviation from the general rules of procedure. Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[19] Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only to proper cases 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 insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[20] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is true that oftentimes the Court applied the rules with flexibility in order that the merits of a case will be fully adjudicated upon, not-withstanding its technical imperfections.[30] But what impels the Court to do so is neither a party's empty invocations of liberality nor its mechanical correction of the imperfections.[31] Rather, only a clear showing of prima facie merit of the petition will persuade the Court to take the extraordinary effort of setting aside its rules to give way to the imperfect petition.[32] After all, the rationale for liberality is to bring to light the merits of the petition, unobstructed by mere deficiencies in its form, such that if the petition has not an iota of merit in it, then there is nothing for the Court to bring to light at all. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Intervention of the Office of the Ombudsman cannot be allowed on liberality. Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[31] Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases 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.[32] | |||||
|
2007-10-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[17] Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases 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 insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[18] | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by the sanctity of an oath[18] to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[19] | |||||