Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187188 2012-06-27	SALVADOR O. MOJAR v. AGRO COMMERCIAL SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY SERENO, J.
In Ferrer v. Villanueva,[18] petitioner therein failed to append the proof of service to his Petition for Certiorari. Holding that this failure was a fatal defect, the Court stated: There is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the foregoing Rule. In Cruz v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree with the Court of Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. (Emphasis in the original)
	GR No. 173342 2010-10-13	ZAMBOANGA FOREST MANAGERS CORP. v. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER PEREZ, J.
While it is admittedly the petitioner who decides at the outset which relevant documents will be appended to his petition, it has been held that the CA has the duty to ensure that "the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition."[25] With the third page missing from ZFMC's copy of the 25 June 1985 decision in MNR Case No. 4023 and the particulars it omitted as a consequence, we find that the CA's directive for the submission of the pleadings the parties filed in said case and in O.P. Case No. 5613 was clearly necessary for the proper appreciation of the facts and the issues relevant to the petition before it. Considering that a petitioner's failure to attach material and relevant documents to his petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss it,[26] the CA correctly dealt with ZFMC's failure to comply with its directive by dismissing the petition pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43 of Rules which provides as follows: Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
	GR Nos. 175045-46 2010-03-03	ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
There have been exceptional cases where we have set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice. To justify a relaxation of the Rules, however, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the Rules.[15] Jurisprudence holds that the utter disregard of the Rules cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and, thus, effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets.[16]
	GR No. 162772 2008-03-14	MERLIZA A. MUÑOZ v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Failure to serve copy of the petition on the adverse party or to show proof of service thereof is a fatal defect,[22] for which the petition can be dismissed under Section 3, Rule 42, thus:Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.