Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ERNESTO GUTIERREZ AND FELICISIMA B. GUTIERREZ v. PASCUAL B. CABRERA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172986 2009-10-02	ARNULFO A. AGUILAR v. CA BRION, J.
We find no reason why we should not afford the same liberal treatment to the present case. While, unquestionably, we have the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound judicial policy dictates that cases are better disposed on the merits rather than on technicality, particularly when the latter approach may result in injustice.[20] This is in accordance with Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court[21] which encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure and not defeat the ends of justice.[22]
	GR NO. 148273 2006-04-19	MILAGROS SIMON v. GUIA W. CANLAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds no reason why it should not afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While unquestionably, the Court has the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter approach may result in injustice.[34] This is in accordance with Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[35] which encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.[36]
	GR NO. 160573 2005-10-19	GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the question of whether or not the Civil Service Commission should be impleaded as respondent in this case, the correct procedure, as mandated by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, is not to implead the lower court or agency which rendered the assailed decision.[26] Hence, we agree with the petitioner that it is not necessary to implead the Civil Service Commission as respondent in her petition.