This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| And, secondly, petitioner himself provides no description in the record of what his official and actual designated tasks are as a "Cabin Steward." Therefore, there is simply no basis to his accusation that he was assigned tasks that were "more hazardous" than the job specified in his contract. With no description at all of what the job of Cabin Steward entails, there is simply no point of determining whether the tasks he was actually ordered to do were more hazardous than that of a Cabin Steward. Whenever there is an allegation of breach of contract, the burden of proving such lies on the party who asserts the same.[79] In the case at bar, that burden has not been discharged. | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is settled that the petitioner's failure to append the pleadings and pertinent documents to the petition can be rectified by the subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration to which is attached the omitted pleadings and documents as required by the CA.[28] | |||||
|
2011-02-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioners' assertion, a plain reading of Section 4, Rule 44 does not provide that non-submission of copies of the approved record on appeal is a ground to dismiss an appeal. Quite plainly, the rule only reads that should there be "any unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record of appeal," the same should be considered as a ground for dismissal. Petitioners' construction of the rules would unduly extend its meaning and application as there is no mention therein that non-submission of the required copies is a ground to dismiss an appeal. Moreover, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Indeed, rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice.[49] This Court cannot attribute to the CA grave abuse of discretion when simply put, the rules does not provide that non-submission of the copies of the approved record on appeal is a mandatory ground for the dismissal of an appeal. | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. [25] Mendoza v. David, G.R. No. 147575, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 172, 181. | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We find that the execution by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and co-owners of the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon. They also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they filed it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights over the properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his co-petitioners that they have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Moreover, it has been held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take cognizance of a petition for review although the certification against forum shopping was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[47] On the legibility of the attached pleadings, particularly the complaint and the amended complaint, we find that the same may be excused given the antiquity of the said documents. Nevertheless, a perusal of the records reveals that the said pleadings are legible enough. Again, the rules of procedure shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[48] | |||||
|
2007-04-03 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| While we agree with respondent that the petition has been filed out of time, we do not agree with its plea that the petition should be dismissed solely on this ground. As much as possible, appeals should not be dismissed on a mere technicality in order to afford the litigants the maximum opportunity for the adjudication of their cases on the merits.[41] While rules of procedure must be faithfully followed, they may be relaxed, for persuasive and weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.[42] | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court also provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Indeed, rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[24] Piglas-Kamao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Mendoza v. David,[26] the Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized.[27] Noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements when they filed their motion for reconsideration.[28] | |||||
|
2006-03-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities.[25] | |||||