This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Thus, on the supposition that they were the case's plaintiffs, Sps. Nazal should bear the obligation imputed by the RTC upon Tito to diligently and expeditiously prosecute the action within a reasonable length of time. The RTC, however, pointed out that Sps. Nazal failed in this regard. As the records would bear, while Sps. Nazal moved to set the case for pre-trial on December 9, 1987, no further action was taken by them after the court a quo failed to calendar the case and set the same for pre-trial. Disconcerting is the fact that it took Sps. Nazal almost eleven (11) years, or on October 20, 1998 to move for the setting of the case for hearing, as they were apparently compelled to act only upon the threat of being dispossessed of the subject property with the filing of the unlawful detainer case by the new registered owners, Sps. Lim. Notably, while under both the present[51] and the old[52] Rules of Court, the clerk of court has the duty to set the case for pre-trial, the same does not relieve the plaintiffs of their own duty to prosecute the case diligently.[53] Truth be told, the expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court.[54] | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We can only sustain the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari. The general rule is that a timely appeal is the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits. This is true even if one of the errors to be assigned on appeal is the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court rendering the judgment over the subject matter, or the exercise of power by said court is in excess of its jurisdiction, or the making of its findings of fact or of law set out in the decision is attended by grave abuse of discretion.[19] In other words, the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory because the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court unavoidably renders the judgment final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment.[20] We stress, too, that the statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the appealing party to strictly comply with the statutes or rules governing the perfection of the appeal because such statutes or rules are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are instituted in favor of an orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, therefore, the statutes or rules should remain inviolable.[21] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing rule, the Court of Appeals clearly satisfied the requirement of a hearing when, in its Resolution dated 4 April 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 102874, it directed respondents to submit their comment on Maj. Gen. Barbieto's prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction within ten days from notice.[29] While it is true that the right to due process safeguards the opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of his claim or defense, the Court has time and again held that where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can "present its side" or defend its "interest in due course," there is no denial of due process. What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[30] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have ruled that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.[24] Rules of Procedure exist for a purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.[25] Procedural rules were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[26] It has been jurisprudentially held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[27] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Ko v. Philippine National Bank,[30] this Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of interest to prosecute for failure of therein petitioner and the latter's counsel to attend a scheduled trial. The Court explained therein that:In every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against him considering that any delay in the proceedings entail prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted. | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. We have always been steadfast in ruling that in every action, the plaintiff is duty-bound to prosecute the same with utmost diligence and with reasonable dispatch to enable him to obtain the relief prayed for and, at the same time, minimize the clogging of the court dockets. The expeditious disposition of cases is as much the duty of the plaintiff as the court. It must be remembered that a defendant in a case likewise has the right to the speedy disposition of the action filed against him, considering that any delay in the proceedings entails prolonged anxiety and valuable time wasted.[54] | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) Rules of procedure do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.[9] These rules are established to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[10] They are not to be trifled with lightly or overlooked by the mere expedience of invoking "substantial justice."[11] In a long line of decisions, this Court has repeatedly held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[12] The same is true with respect to the rules on the manner of and periods for perfecting appeals.[13] | |||||