This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Cruz v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court likewise refused to relax its procedural rules:Petitioner does not deny the procedural infraction on his part, but he asks for the relaxation of the rules. Granting his plea, however, would be to fault the appellate court for acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure which the court has been mandated to observe. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| While the rigid application of the rules of procedure has, in the past, been relaxed so that the ends of justice may be better served, such liberality may not be invoked if it would result in the wanton disregard of the rules, and cause needless delay. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with the rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[21] Under the factual circumstances of this case, the negligence of petitioner's counsel does not constitute sufficient justification for a liberal application of procedural rules in her favor. In addition, to grant petitioner's request would be to fault the CA for acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure which that court has been mandated to observe.[22] Viewed in this light, it cannot be said that the CA committed an error in denying the petition for being procedurally defective. | |||||