This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| PSB argues that the decision rendered by the RTC in Civil Case No. 44940 entitled "Douglas F. Anama v. Philippine Savings Bank, et. al."[3] had long become final and executory as shown by the Entry of Judgment made by the Court on July 12, 2004. The finality of the said decision entitles the respondents, by law, to the issuance of a writ of execution. PSB laments that petitioner relies more on technicalities to frustrate the ends of justice and to delay the enforcement of a final and executory decision. | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In resolving this issue, we are guided by two principles. First, there is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings and their forms or contents, their sole purpose being to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties.[3] Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules should be construed liberally.[4] Second, the judicial attitude has always been favorable and liberal in allowing amendments to a pleading in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and so that the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined, and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay.[5] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We note that it was the Estares spouses' choice to present only Rosenda to testify on the circumstances of the loan at the hearing on their application for a writ of preliminary injunction and they cannot assert that Eliseo should have been accorded that opportunity during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[47] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[48] Eliseo cannot complain that he was deprived of due process since he is given the full opportunity to testify on the circumstances of the loan during the trial of the main case.[49] | |||||
|
2004-08-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes, therefore, is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[17] A party who opts not to avail of the opportunity to answer cannot complain of procedural due process. There can be no denial of due process where a party had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so through his own fault. | |||||