This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| This Court invariably sustains the appellate court's dismissal of a petition on technical grounds, unless considerations of equity and substantial justice present cogent reasons to hold otherwise.[35] Leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such procedural lapse.[36] We are not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, provided that concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure is an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[37] We find that an adequate justification has been proffered by the petitioners for their supposed procedural shortcoming. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of Lee, the RTC and the CA did not "ignore" the traditional "doctrine of liberality" but merely relied upon the guidelines as to when it is applicable and, after being so guided, chose not to apply it under the existing circumstances. It is true that rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure for persuasive and weights reasons. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[10] In this case, however, Lee did not bother to offer any convincing reason for this Court to relax the rules and just plainly sought its liberal interpretation. The Court, in Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc v. Alberto J. Raza,[11] stated: To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.[12] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[13] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, Ramirez must show reasonable cause justifying his non-compliance with the rules and must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice. The desired leniency cannot be accorded, absent valid and compelling reasons for such procedural lapse. The appellate court saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the rules; neither do we see any.[36] | |||||