Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163999 2014-07-09	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MILLARD R. OCAMPO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Section 4,[54] Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a special civil action for certiorari should be instituted within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the judgment, order, or resolution being assailed. The 60-day period, however, is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay, which would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.[55] Thus, strict compliance of this rule is mandatory and imperative. [56] But like all rules, the 60-day limitation may be relaxed "for the most persuasive of reasons," which must be sufficiently shown by the party invoking liberality. [57]
	GR No. 184915 2009-06-30	NILO T. PATES v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Under this unique nature of the exceptions, a party asking for the suspension of the Rules of Court comes to us with the heavy burden of proving that he deserves to be accorded exceptional treatment. Every plea for a liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the rules and by a justification for the requested liberal construction.[10]
	GR No. 171098 2008-02-26	JUAN G. GARCIA v. CA and GARCIA PASION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners seek a liberal application of the procedural rules. For their failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders of the RTC, petitioners place the blame on the appellate court. Petitioners brazenly suggest that what the Court of Appeals should have done was to issue an Order directing them to comply with the rule on attaching certified true copies, instead of dismissing the case on its face. We do not see reason to grant liberality in the application of the rules. It must be emphasized that the liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.[21] While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[22] Only strong considerations of equity, which are wanting in this case, will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice.[23] To further suggest petitioners' impervious attitude towards rules, they even failed to attach certified true copies or duplicate original copies of the assailed Orders in their Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[24] Circular No. 3-96 is also unequivocal that it shall be the duty and responsibility of the party to verify and ensure compliance with all the requirements detailed therein. In fact, failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case.[25]
	GR No. 173127 2007-10-17	DEE HWA LIONG ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. EMELINDA PAPIONA CARPIO MORALES, J.
While Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides for a liberal construction of the rules in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, the same can not be used as a vehicle to ignore the Rules at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution.[16]
	GR NO. 163186 2007-02-28	EMERLITO F. AGUILA v. CARMEN R. BALDOVIZO QUISUMBING, J.
In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for petitioners to appeal the Amended Decision which is void. As for petitioners' plea for substantial justice, time and again, we have reminded the litigants that the Rules of Court are not mere tools that they can readily use or discard to serve their own purpose, but they are purposively devised for the proper administration of justice. Litigants should not, after resorting to a wrong remedy, then cry for liberal construction of these rules. For utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by merely harking on the policy of liberal construction.[18]