This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Court litigation is primarily a search for truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules that gives to both parties the fullest opportunity to adduce proof is the best way to ferret out such truth.[36] Thus, a court may suspend its own rules or except a case from them in order to serve the ends of justice; or, it may altogether disregard the rules in a proper case.[37] To cling to the general rule of having the ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty of the counsel bind the client is only to condone rather than to rectify a serious injustice to a party whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his cause to his counsel.[38] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The desideratum of a speedy disposition of cases should not, if at all possible, result in the precipitate loss of a party's right to present evidence and either the plaintiff's being non-suited or the defendant's being held liable under an ex parte judgment.[17] It is a far better and more prudent course of action for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties. This gives a false impression of speedy disposition of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of justice.[18] | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is the policy of the Court to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly determined, free from the constraints of technicalities. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice. Oft-cited is the rule that it is a far better and more prudent course of action for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.[17] | |||||