Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO PASCUAL FABRIGAR v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 187485 2013-02-12	CIR v. SAN ROQUE POWER CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
G.R. No. 196113 is a petition for review[6] assailing the Decision[7] promulgated on 8 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[8] promulgated on 14 March 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 624. In its Decision, the CTA EB reversed the 8 January 2010 Decision[9] as well as the 7 April 2010 Resolution[10] of the CTA Second Division and granted the CIR's petition for review in CTA Case No. 7574. The CTA EB dismissed, for having been prematurely filed, Taganito Mining Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for P8,365,664.38 tax refund or credit.
	GR No. 183449 2012-03-12	ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Notably, the petition for review was already filed on June 5, 2007, which was long before the CA issued its Resolution dated September 21, 2007 dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time. There was no showing that respondent suffered any material injury or his cause was prejudiced by reason of such delay. Moreover, the RTC decision which was sought to be reversed in the petition for review filed in the CA had affirmed the MTC judgment convicting petitioner of direct assault, hence, the petition involved no less than petitioner's liberty.[15] We do not find anything on record that shows petitioner's deliberate intent to delay the final disposition of the case as he had filed the petition for review within the extended period sought, although erroneously computed. These circumstances should have been taken into consideration for the CA not to dismiss the petition outright.
	GR No. 183449 2012-03-12	ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice.[18] After all, the higher objective of procedural rule is to insure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected.[19] Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[20]