This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-05-05 |
|||||
| 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. | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Verily, litigation is not a game of technicalities. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[25] Indeed, on 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.[26] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[27] Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[28] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[29] 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.[30] | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee,[13] for which two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in the Labor Code;[14] and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[15] | |||||
|
2006-03-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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.[17] Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party.[19] 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] In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[21] 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.[22] | |||||