Lawyerly

GR No. 172458

2011-12-14

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of service is not fatal if the registry receipt attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other party, [40] it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure PNB failed to satisfy. In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41] we said: It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[42]

GR No. 176129

2011-08-24

HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO v. RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their petition's dismissal.[30]

AM OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J

2011-01-11

RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA

VELASCO JR., J.

It must be borne in mind that complainants, as primarily confidential employees, need the trust of their immediate superior, Justice Elbinias. In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara,[32] this Court reiterated the principle behind and the element of trust in the employment to a primarily confidential position. We cited De los Santos vs. Mallare, thus: Every appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state.[33]

GR No. 141508

2010-05-05

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON

Verily, in numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time- honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[37] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[38] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[39] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. [40] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[41] In the case at bar, considering that the same involves the various claims of 371 respondents, this Court finds that justice and equity are best served by allowing respondents to prove their case on the merits rather than denying them their day in court on a strict application of the rules.

GR No. 172623

2010-03-13

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS v. CELSO M. PALER

CORONA, J.

When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day delay, as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay justice on the part of Paler[29] and the pleading is meritorious on its face.

GR No. 169958

2010-03-05

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ v. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI

CARPIO, J.

A one-day delay does not justify the appeal's dismissal where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to the petitioner.[9] The Court has ruled: The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[10]

GR No. 168910

2009-08-24

REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. PETER I. GUINMAPANG

CARPIO, J.

The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[12] By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.[13] The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[14]

GR No. 174136

2008-12-23

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE

REYES, R.T., J.

Be that as it may, when the rules of procedure are rigid and strict in application, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend them.[59]

GR No. 165359

2008-07-14

HONDA CARS MAKATI v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

at the expense of substantial justice.[19] Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules; that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[20]

GR No. 159127

2008-03-03

RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Inasmuch as the present petition principally assails the dismissal of the petition on ground of procedural flaws involving the jurisdiction of the court a quo to entertain the petition, it falls within the ambit of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[16] Anent petitioner's failure to attach the affidavit of service, we find the same not fatal to the petition since it showed that copies of the petition were personally served on the RTC and private respondent's counsel on September 3, 2002 as evidenced by the parties' official receiving stamps appearing opposite their names. By analogy, we have held[17] that the non-attachment of the affidavit of service is not fatal to the petition when the registry receipts attached to the petition clearly show that respondents were served copies of the petition; that the demands of substantial justice were satisfied by the actual receipt of the petition.[18]

GR No. 172812

2008-02-12

AMELIA R. ENRIQUEZ v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

TINGA, J,

While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.[20] This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[21] Considering that there was substantial compliance, a liberal interpretation of procedural rules in this labor case is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure social justice.[22]

GR NO. 154018

2007-04-03

ELIZABETH PEÑOSO v. MACROSMAN DONA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara,[17] this Court held:While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Thus, the CA should have refrained from hastily dismissing the petition on procedural flaws.

GR NO. 167714

2007-03-07

ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, notice and hearing.[24] And in case of employees' dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripe's summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just or authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282,[25] 283,[26] and 284[27] of the Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.

GR NO. 165788

2007-02-07

ALEJANDRO V. DONATO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Likewise unavailing is the petitioner's protestation that the PSP was not identified and formally offered in evidence. The CSC, including the CSCRO 1 in this case, being an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers, is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases, subject only to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process.[20] As earlier opined, these basic requirements of due process have been complied with by the CSC, including the CSCRO 1.

GR NO. 142358

2006-01-31

GRAND PLACEMENT v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Verily, the resolution of the interpretation of the respondent's contract and her entitlement to salary differential, night shift differential, full attendance bonus and excessive placement fee requires conscientious evaluation and assessment of the evidence adduced by the parties, which is best undertaken by the Labor Arbiter. This Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues nor is it its function to analyze or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. Needless to stress, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[47] Ordinarily, the case should be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties. However, considering that the records of the NLRC are before the Court, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay.[48]

	GR No. 172458 2011-12-14	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Although the failure to attach the required affidavit of service is not fatal if the registry receipt attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other party, [40] it must be remembered that this was not the only rule of procedure PNB failed to satisfy. In Suarez v. Judge Villarama, Jr.[41] we said: It is an accepted tenet that rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive and weighting reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[42]
	GR No. 176129 2011-08-24	HEIRS OF RODOLFO CRISOSTOMO v. RUDEX INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not justify their petition's dismissal.[30]
	AM OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J 2011-01-11	RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA VELASCO JR., J.
It must be borne in mind that complainants, as primarily confidential employees, need the trust of their immediate superior, Justice Elbinias. In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara,[32] this Court reiterated the principle behind and the element of trust in the employment to a primarily confidential position. We cited De los Santos vs. Mallare, thus: Every appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state.[33]
	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
Verily, in numerous occasions, this Court has relaxed the rigid application of the rules to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time- honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should thus not serve as basis of decisions.[37] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[38] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[39] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. [40] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[41] In the case at bar, considering that the same involves the various claims of 371 respondents, this Court finds that justice and equity are best served by allowing respondents to prove their case on the merits rather than denying them their day in court on a strict application of the rules.
	GR No. 172623 2010-03-13	COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS v. CELSO M. PALER CORONA, J.
When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day delay, as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay justice on the part of Paler[29] and the pleading is meritorious on its face.
	GR No. 169958 2010-03-05	DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ v. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI CARPIO, J.
A one-day delay does not justify the appeal's dismissal where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to the petitioner.[9] The Court has ruled: The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[10]
	GR No. 168910 2009-08-24	REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. PETER I. GUINMAPANG CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[12] By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.[13] The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[14]
	GR No. 174136 2008-12-23	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. NASIPIT INTEGRATED ARRASTRE REYES, R.T., J.
Be that as it may, when the rules of procedure are rigid and strict in application, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is empowered to suspend them.[59]
	GR No. 165359 2008-07-14	HONDA CARS MAKATI v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
at the expense of substantial justice.[19] Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules; that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[20]
	GR No. 159127 2008-03-03	RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Inasmuch as the present petition principally assails the dismissal of the petition on ground of procedural flaws involving the jurisdiction of the court a quo to entertain the petition, it falls within the ambit of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[16] Anent petitioner's failure to attach the affidavit of service, we find the same not fatal to the petition since it showed that copies of the petition were personally served on the RTC and private respondent's counsel on September 3, 2002 as evidenced by the parties' official receiving stamps appearing opposite their names. By analogy, we have held[17] that the non-attachment of the affidavit of service is not fatal to the petition when the registry receipts attached to the petition clearly show that respondents were served copies of the petition; that the demands of substantial justice were satisfied by the actual receipt of the petition.[18]
	GR No. 172812 2008-02-12	AMELIA R. ENRIQUEZ v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TINGA, J,
While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.[20] This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[21] Considering that there was substantial compliance, a liberal interpretation of procedural rules in this labor case is more in keeping with the constitutional mandate to secure social justice.[22]
	GR NO. 154018 2007-04-03	ELIZABETH PEÑOSO v. MACROSMAN DONA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara,[17] this Court held:While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Thus, the CA should have refrained from hastily dismissing the petition on procedural flaws.
	GR NO. 167714 2007-03-07	ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, notice and hearing.[24] And in case of employees' dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripe's summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just or authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282,[25] 283,[26] and 284[27] of the Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.
	GR NO. 165788 2007-02-07	ALEJANDRO V. DONATO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1 CALLEJO, SR., J.
Likewise unavailing is the petitioner's protestation that the PSP was not identified and formally offered in evidence. The CSC, including the CSCRO 1 in this case, being an administrative body with quasi-judicial powers, is not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases, subject only to limitations imposed by basic requirements of due process.[20] As earlier opined, these basic requirements of due process have been complied with by the CSC, including the CSCRO 1.
	GR NO. 142358 2006-01-31	GRAND PLACEMENT v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Verily, the resolution of the interpretation of the respondent's contract and her entitlement to salary differential, night shift differential, full attendance bonus and excessive placement fee requires conscientious evaluation and assessment of the evidence adduced by the parties, which is best undertaken by the Labor Arbiter. This Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues nor is it its function to analyze or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. Needless to stress, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[47] Ordinarily, the case should be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for proper evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties. However, considering that the records of the NLRC are before the Court, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay.[48]

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. MARITA A. ANGARA