This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is not to say, however, that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with lightly, but that, rather, exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application.[14] It is within the CTA's sound judicial discretion to give party-litigants every opportunity to properly present their conflicting claims on the merits of the controversy without resorting to technicalities.[15] It should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties of the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default, for default judgments are frowned upon, and unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay, it is best that trial courts give both parties every chance to fight their case fairly and in the open, without resort to technicality.[16] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The partial summary judgment rendered under the trial court's Order dated March 5, 2003 being a nullity, the case should be remanded to saidcourt for the conduct of trial on the issue of the reimbursement of expenses for repair/renovation works being claimed by the respondent. For this purpose, petitioners shall be afforded fair opportunity to scrutinize the respondent's evidence, cross-examine its witnesses and present controverting evidence. It is to be noted that the partial summary judgment was rendered before petitioners were declared non-suited. Petitioners had promptly challenged the validity of the default order and even sought an injunction against the ex-parte presentation of evidence by the respondent; however, the CA did not act on the matter until the rendition of the trial court's December 1, 2003 Decision. Substantial justice in this instance can best be served if a full opportunity is given to both parties to litigate their dispute and submit the merits of their respective positions.[32] | |||||
|
2004-10-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Instead of denying the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals should have ruled on the merits of the case considering that Mendoza already submitted the pleadings and documents required by the Court of Appeals. The rules of procedure are designed to ensure a fair, orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.[14] 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.[15] Reliance on the Factual Findings of the Lower Courts | |||||