This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule, its relaxation and their rationale were discussed by the Court at length in Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association[51] where we said: Much reliance is placed on the rule that "Courts are not slaves or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around." This rule must always be used in the right context, lest injustice, rather than justice would be its end result. | |||||
|
2010-02-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Liberal application of procedural rules is allowed only when two requisites are present: (1) there is a plausible explanation for the non-compliance, and (2) the outright dismissal would defeat the administration of justice. In Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association,[27] the Court held that "the two pre-requisites for the relaxation of the rules are: (1) justifiable cause or plausible reason for non-compliance; and (2) compelling reason to convince the court that outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice."[28] Both requisites are lacking in the present case. | |||||