This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The principle of substantial compliance recognizes that exigencies and situations do occasionally demand some flexibility in the rigid application of the rules of procedure and the laws.[26] That rules of procedure may be mandatory in form and application does not forbid a showing of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances,[27] because substantial compliance does not equate to a disregard of basic rules. For sure, substantial compliance and strict adherence are not always incompatible and do not always clash in discord. The power of the Court to suspend its own rules or to except any particular case from the operation of the rules whenever the purposes of justice require the suspension cannot be challenged.[28] In the interest of substantial justice, even procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance are frequently relaxed. Similarly, the procedural rules should definitely be liberally construed if strict adherence to their letter will result in absurdity and in manifest injustice, or where the merits of a party's cause are apparent and outweigh considerations of non-compliance with certain formal requirements.[29] It is more in accord with justice that a party-litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his claim or defense than for him to lose his life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. Truly, the rules of procedure are intended to promote substantial justice, not to defeat it, and should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense.[30] Petitioner urges the Court to resolve the apparent conflict between the rulings in Heirs of Pedro Cabais v. Court of Appeals[31] (Cabais) and in Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals[32] (Conti) establishing filiation through a baptismal certificate.[33] | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While the reglementary periods fixed under the rules for relief from judgment are mandatory in character,[26] procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may, in the interest of substantial justice, be relaxed.[27] Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, they are not to be applied with severity and rigidity when such application would clearly defeat the very rationale for their existence. In line with this postulate, the Court can and will relax or altogether suspend the application of the rules, or except a particular case from the rules' operation when their rigid application tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.[28] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| While, indeed, the petition for reconstitution may be considered as having been filed under Sec. 3(f) of R.A. No. 26, the photocopy of the owner's certificate of title presented by respondent in support of her petition is still considered secondary evidence. As such, it is inadmissible unless respondent proves any of the exceptions provided in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and establishes the conditions for their admissibility under Section 5 of the same rule.[10] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Taking into account the fact that private respondent is entitled to the "fresh period rule," in the interest of substantial justice, procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may be relaxed.[31] | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [That] the notice of the petition must be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing; [That] the notice state among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificates of title if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim of objection to the petition; [That] a copy of the notice also be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein (i.e. the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties) whose address is known at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing; and [That] at the hearing, petitioner submits proof of publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.[11] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||