Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS UNDER TRADE NAME v. MIGUEL GERALDITO R. CATACUTAN

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 176944 2013-03-06	RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT v. REPUBLIC BRION, J.
As a result of the Ombudsman's complaint, the Compliance and Investigation staff (CIS) of the AMLC conducted a financial investigation, which revealed the existence of the Ligots' various bank accounts with several financial institutions.[20] On April 5, 2005, the Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers issued a resolution holding that probable cause exists that Lt. Gen. Ligot violated Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of RA No. 6713, as well as Article 183[21] of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 175399 2009-10-27	OPHELIA L. TUATIS v. SPS. ELISEO ESCOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The sound reason behind the policy of the Court in requiring the attachment to the petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or quo warranto of a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed judgment or order, is to ensure that the said copy submitted for review is a faithful reproduction of the original, so that the reviewing court would have a definitive basis in its determination of whether the court, body, or tribunal which rendered the assailed judgment or order committed grave abuse of discretion.[34] Also, the Court has consistently held that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is jurisdictional and is necessary for the perfection of an appeal.[35]
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(iii) A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee. Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or an opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment.[37]
	GR NO. 169596 2007-03-28	SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, however, procedural lapses may be disregarded so that a case may be resolved on its merits. As held in Durban Apartments Corporation v. Catacutan:[14]
	GR NO. 160741 2007-03-22	HERMINIA CANDO v. SPS. AURORA OLAZO AND CLAUDIO OLAZO TINGA, J.
We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause-free, as much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. In the interest of its equity jurisdiction, the Court may disregard procedural lapses so that a case may be resolved on its merits. Rules of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice. Hence, the Court may opt to apply the Rules liberally to resolve substantial issues raised by the parties.[18]
	GR NO. 167471 2007-02-05	GLICERIA SARMIENTO v. EMERITA ZARATAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well to remember that this Court, in not a few cases, has consistently held that cases shall be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defense, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In so doing, the ends of justice would be better served.[27] Furthermore, this Court emphasized its policy that technical rules should accede to the demands of substantial justice because there is no vested right in technicalities. Litigations, should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims. As has been the constant rulings of this Court, every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from constraints of technicalities.[28] Indeed, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote justice must be avoided.[29]
	GR NO. 146762 2007-01-30	CULVER B. SUICO v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should be emphasized, however, that, consistent with our ruling in Agabon,[72] the procedural deficiency in the dismissal of Suico, et al. did not affect the validity or effectivity of the dismissal as the substantive bases thereof were never put in issue.[73] Thus, the April 12, 2002 CA Decision in G.R. No. 163793 was erroneous as it declared the dismissal of Borje illegal merely for failure of PLDT to observe due process. The CA should have affirmed the validity of the dismissal of Borje and awarded him nominal damages for the impairment of his statutory right to due process.
	GR NO. 155058 2006-09-26	PINAKAMASARAP CORPORATION v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There are strict requirements petitioner ought to have followed when it sought to avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.[24] It should have attached clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject of the petition.[25] There is a sound reason behind this policy and it is to ensure that the copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original so that the reviewing court would have a definitive basis in its determination of whether the court, body or tribunal which rendered the assailed judgment or order committed grave abuse of discretion.[26] Also, it should have appended photocopies of material portions of the record as are referred to in the assailed judgment or final order and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto[27] unless a summary thereof can already be found in a document, a certified true copy of which is attached to the petition.[28]
	GR NO. 148247 2006-08-07	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. ENRICO E. ZAMORA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Note that the foregoing rules speak of two sets of documents to be attached to the petition. The first set consists of certified true copies of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. Duplicate originals or certified true copies thereof must be appended to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered the same committed grave abuse of discretion.[25] The second set consists of the pleadings, portions of the case record and other documents which are material and pertinent to the petition.[26] Mere photocopies thereof may be attached to the petition.[27] It is this second set of documents which is relevant to this case.