Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. NO. 10525 2015-09-01	INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE UY v. ATTY. PACIFICO M. MAGHARI III LEONEN, J.
Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified persons, something the law strongly proscribes.[39] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 166944 2014-08-18	JUANITO MAGSINO v. ELENA DE OCAMPO BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner is further reminded that any "resort to a liberal application or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice."[33] It cannot be otherwise for him, for, as the Court aptly put it in Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation:[34]
	GR No. 147257 2013-07-31	SPS. JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner-spouses primarily anchor this petition on an invocation of the rule on liberality in the construction of procedural rules. However, the "liberal construction rule" is not a license to disregard procedural requirements. Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[49]
	GR No. 174149 2010-09-08	J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG PEREZ, J.
With the foregoing procedural antecedents, the initial 15-day extension granted by the CA and the injunction under Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against further extensions "except for the most compelling reason", it was clearly inexcusable for petitioner to expediently plead its counsel's heavy workload as ground for seeking an additional extension of 10 days within which to file its petition for review. To our mind, petitioner would do well to remember that, rather than the low gate to which parties are unreasonably required to stoop, procedural rules are designed for the orderly conduct of proceedings and expeditious settlement of cases in the courts of law. Like all rules, they are required to be followed[50] and utter disregard of the same cannot be expediently rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction[51] which was never intended as an unfettered license to disregard the letter of the law or, for that matter, a convenient excuse to substitute substantial compliance for regular adherence thereto. When it comes to compliance with time rules, the Court cannot afford inexcusable delay.[52]