This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-10-01 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Its three (3) pleadings having been allowed, Am-Phil had no shortage of opportunities to plead its claims and to adduce its evidence. It has no basis for claiming that it was not "afforded [a] fair and reasonable opportunity to explain [its side] of the controversy."[47] The filing of its motion for leave to admit supplemental rejoinder represents nothing more than a belated and procedurally inutile attempt at resuscitating its case. | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary for an effective and expeditious administration of justice and cannot, for said reason, be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[49] This holds particularly true in the case at bench where, prior to the filing of its petition for review before the CA, petitioner's appeal before the OP was likewise dismissed in view of its failure to file its appeal memorandum within the extensions of time it had been granted by said office. After being granted an initial extension of 15 days to do the same, the records disclose that petitioner was granted by the OP a second extension of 10 days from 15 March 2005 or until 25 March 2005 within which to file its appeal memorandum, on the condition that no further extensions shall be allowed. Aside from not heeding said proviso, petitioner had, consequently, no more time to extend when it filed its 31 March 2005 motion seeking yet another extension of 10 days or until 10 April 2005 within which to file its appeal memorandum. | |||||
|
2009-09-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This rule, however, admits exceptions. Sy v. ALC Industries, Inc.[18] reflects so: Although the NLRC Rules of Procedure may be liberally construed in the determination of labor disputes, there is, however, a caveat to this policy. Liberal construction of the NLRC rules is allowed only in meritorious cases, where there is substantial compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules by posting a partial bond. In Bunagan v. Sentinel Watchman and Protective Agency, Inc., we held: | |||||