Lawyerly

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

provisions of Rule 43.[27] Barata v. Abalos, Jr.,[28] Coronel v. Desierto,[29] and recently Dimagiba v. Espartero[30] have reiterated the pertinent holding in Fabian. The Decision of the Ombudsman is mandatory and immediately executory

GR No. 181455-56

2009-12-04

SANTIAGO CUA v. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The merits of the Petitions in both G.R. No. 181455-56 and No. 182008 compel this Court to give more weight to substantive justice, instead of technical rules. Indeed, where, as here, there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, the Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice. It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the Rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[60]

GR No. 130223

2009-08-19

RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA v. MANILA MISSION OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, it may do petitioner well to remember that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[6] Hence, even if the Motion to Release Property from Attachment does not strictly comply with Section 14, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may still allow and act upon said Motion to render substantive justice.

GR No. 176511

2009-08-04

SPS. OBDULIA H. ESPEJO AND HILDELBERTO T. ESPEJO v. GERALDINE COLOMA ITO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[19]

GR NO. 154678

2007-07-17

CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[32] Rule 43 which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[33]

GR No. 164460

2006-06-27

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CARMENCITA D. CORONEL

PANGANIBAN, C.J.

Originally, Respondent Coronel filed before this Court a Rule 65 Petition,[10] seeking the nullification of petitioner's Disapproval Order for having deprived her of due process. In that case,[11] we said that the Petition should

GR NO. 141426

2005-05-06

ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]

GR No. 138777

2004-09-22

JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Indeed, where as here, there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice.[8]

GR No. 149724

2003-08-19

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT v. DENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

This Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Time and again, courts have been guided by the principle that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice.[11] Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of this Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[12]

GR No. 145951

2003-08-12

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The foregoing rule, however, may be relaxed where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. In such cases, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and availability of the remedy of appeal. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient.[8] If the strict application of the Rules will tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[9]

GR No. 153087

2003-08-07

BERNARD R. NALA v. JUDGE JESUS M. BARROSO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

At the outset, it must be noted that the instant petition for certiorari was filed directly with this Court in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. In the interest of substantial justice and speedy disposition of cases, however, we opt to take cognizance of this petition in order to address the urgency and seriousness of the constitutional issues raised.[16] In rendering decisions, courts have always been conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[17]

	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
provisions of Rule 43.[27] Barata v. Abalos, Jr.,[28] Coronel v. Desierto,[29] and recently Dimagiba v. Espartero[30] have reiterated the pertinent holding in Fabian. The Decision of the Ombudsman is mandatory and immediately executory
	GR No. 181455-56 2009-12-04	SANTIAGO CUA v. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The merits of the Petitions in both G.R. No. 181455-56 and No. 182008 compel this Court to give more weight to substantive justice, instead of technical rules. Indeed, where, as here, there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, the Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice. It bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that, on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the Rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[60]
	GR No. 130223 2009-08-19	RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA v. MANILA MISSION OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, it may do petitioner well to remember that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[6] Hence, even if the Motion to Release Property from Attachment does not strictly comply with Section 14, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, the RTC may still allow and act upon said Motion to render substantive justice.
	GR No. 176511 2009-08-04	SPS. OBDULIA H. ESPEJO AND HILDELBERTO T. ESPEJO v. GERALDINE COLOMA ITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[19]
	GR NO. 154678 2007-07-17	CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[32] Rule 43 which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[33]
	GR No. 164460 2006-06-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CARMENCITA D. CORONEL PANGANIBAN, C.J.
Originally, Respondent Coronel filed before this Court a Rule 65 Petition,[10] seeking the nullification of petitioner's Disapproval Order for having deprived her of due process. In that case,[11] we said that the Petition should
	GR NO. 141426 2005-05-06	ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]
	GR No. 138777 2004-09-22	JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Indeed, where as here, there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, we will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice.[8]
	GR No. 149724 2003-08-19	DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT v. DENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Time and again, courts have been guided by the principle that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as rules of procedure are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice.[11] Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of this Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[12]
	GR No. 145951 2003-08-12	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The foregoing rule, however, may be relaxed where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. In such cases, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and availability of the remedy of appeal. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient.[8] If the strict application of the Rules will tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[9]
	GR No. 153087 2003-08-07	BERNARD R. NALA v. JUDGE JESUS M. BARROSO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
At the outset, it must be noted that the instant petition for certiorari was filed directly with this Court in disregard of the rule on hierarchy of courts. In the interest of substantial justice and speedy disposition of cases, however, we opt to take cognizance of this petition in order to address the urgency and seriousness of the constitutional issues raised.[16] In rendering decisions, courts have always been conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.[17]

CARMENCITA D. CORONEL v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO