Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNITED PULP v. UNITED PULP

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165355 2012-09-26	TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION BRION, J.
Section 5, Rule 7[33] of the Rules of Court mandates that it should be the plaintiff or principal party who should sign the certification against forum shopping. A petition is flawed when the certification is signed only by the counsel and not by the party,[34] because it is the party, and not the counsel, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition.[35] While we have relaxed this rule in instances when substantial justice requires it, i.e., when the petitioner's case was meritorious,[36] this case does not fall within this exception, as will be discussed later.
	GR NO. 167533 2007-07-27	AUDI AG v. JULES A. MEJIA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Once again, we stress that the rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard following judicial procedure and in the correct forum. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance by the parties of the procedural rules.[13]
	GR NO. 129318 2006-10-27	DIRECTOR CELSO PASCUAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not to be intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitor's may be heard in the correct form and manner, at the prescribed time in a peaceful though adversarial confrontation before a judge whose authority litigants acknowledge. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance of the rules of procedure, particularly by government officials and agencies.[20]
	GR NO. 144024 2006-07-27	PEDRO TAGABI v. MARGARITO TANQUE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Citing Kowloon House/Willy Ng v. Court of Appeals,[15] this Court reiterated the following pronouncements in United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. United Pulp and Paper Chapter- Federation of Free Workers:[16]