Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISIDORO A. PADILLA v. LUIS ALIPIO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176511 2009-08-04	SPS. OBDULIA H. ESPEJO AND HILDELBERTO T. ESPEJO v. GERALDINE COLOMA ITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be noted that in this case, petitioners immediately acted to rectify their earlier procedural lapse by submitting, together with their Motion for Reconsideration of the 19 December 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, a Motion to Admit a copy of their Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. Submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and calls for the relaxation of procedural rules.[21]
	GR No. 172891 2007-11-22	SPS. HENRY LANARIA AND LATE BELEN LANARIA AS SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCIS JOHN LANARIA v. FRANCISCO M. PLANTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. In Padilla, Jr. v. Alipio,[18] the Court of Appeals denied a Petition for Review on the ground that it was not accompanied by certified true copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. On Petition for Review on Certiorari, this Court set aside the outright dismissal of the case, ruling that petitioners therein annexed copies of the supporting documents as well as a certified true copy of the MeTC Decision in the Motion for Reconsideration, which thus constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 42.
	GR NO. 153188 2007-08-14	JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners are deserving of such indulgence. On motion for reconsideration, they supplied the deficiencies of their petition and offered a plausible explanation for their earlier lapse. Their effort constituted substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and called for the relaxation of procedural rules;[24] more so when they have already prevailed in the main case before public respondent, which approved their promotional appointments. To rebuff their claim for backwages on a technicality would be to take with the left hand what the right hand has given. In Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania,[25] the respondent's tardy and deficient appeal was given due course to afford her full redress from her wrongful dismissal and to serve the broader interests of justice.
	GR NO. 150642 2006-10-23	BENJAMIN G. NAVALTA v. MARCELO S. MULI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that generally, cases should be determined on the merits rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[14] In that way, the ends of justice would be served better.[15] Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon. The rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims.[16] Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of the rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[17]