This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-10-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As noted by the CA, petitioners did not even bother to file a motion asking the trial court to admit their position paper which was belatedly filed. Indeed, the record is barren of any evidence to show that petitioners, at least, tried to offer any explanation or justification for such delay. They simply ignored the Rules. This Court has previously held that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving.[16] Moreover, rules of procedure do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.[17] These rules are established to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[18] They are not to be trifled with lightly or overlooked by the mere expedience of invoking "substantial justice."[19] In a long line of decisions, this Court has repeatedly held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[20] In the instant case, petitioners' complete disregard of the Rules of Court and of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure only shows that they are not deserving of their relaxation. Hence, the MTC erred in admitting petitioners' position paper and taking the same into consideration in rendering its judgment. | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system.[16] While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[17] The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with.[18] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[50] While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[51] | |||||