Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASCOT HOLDINGS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180755 2009-06-19	PEDIATRICA v. JOSELITO T. RAFAELES NACHURA, J.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they must be followed except only, for the most persuasive of reasons, when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[19]
	GR No. 181688 2009-06-05	DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. v. ALBERTO J. RAZA VELASCO JR., J.
We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" line is not some magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights.[7] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[8]
	GR No. 150746 2008-10-15	SIMEON NICOLAS CHAN v. YOLANDA CHAN NACHURA, J.
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial; Notwithstanding the strict requirement under the Rules of Court of a motion for reconsideration before the institution of a special civil action, petitioners were proscribed from filing the same by the express provision of the Interim Rules. Had they filed the same, it would have been considered pro forma; and it would not have tolled the running of the reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari.[27] Consequently, the CA could have lost jurisdiction to entertain the petition and the petitioners would have been left without a remedy to assail the RTC order. In addition to the above proscription, because of the express declaration made by the RTC that the order was immediately executory, direct resort to the appellate court was the most, if not the only, remedy available to the petitioners. Thus, considering that there was no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners rightly filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
	GR No. 164314 2008-09-26	SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES REYES, R.T., J.
The overt consequence of the introduction of a prohibited pleading was pointed out succinctly by this Court in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities, Inc.:[65]