This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It goes without saying that petitioners' action, having been lodged through an improper petition, is susceptible to outright dismissal. As the Court held in Pates v. COMELEC,[57] a Rule 64 petition cannot simply be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule.[58] The clear distinction between the instant, petition and Pates, however, is that in Pates, therein petitioner failed to present an exceptional circumstance or any compelling reason that would have warranted the liberal application of the Rules of Court. In stark contrast, herein petitioners, as will later on be discussed, were able to establish a meritorious case for the relaxation of the rules, relieving them from the rigid application of procedural requirements. We therefore treat the instant recourse as one filed not merely in relation to, but under Rule 65. | |||||
|
2015-01-27 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We ruled in Pates v. Commission on Elections[22] that the belated filing of the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 on the belief that the fresh period rule should apply was fatal to the recourse. As such, the petitioner herein should suffer the same fate for having wrongly assumed that the fresh period rule under Neypes[23] applied. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice that is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[24] Absent this reason for liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to prosper. | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court's intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity."[22] | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court's intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity."[22] | |||||
|
2012-06-26 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The exception referred to in Section 2 of this Rule refers precisely to the immediately succeeding provision, Section 3 thereof,[14] which provides for the allowable period within which to file petitions for certiorari from judgments of both the COMBLBC and the Commission on Audit. Thus, while Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated, as they provide for different reglementary periods.[15] Rule 65 provides for a period of 60 days from notice of judgment sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court, while Section 3 expressly provides for only 30 days, viz: SEC. 3. Time to file petition. The petition shall be tiled within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. It' the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. | |||||
|
2011-05-31 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Several times in the past, we emphasized that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, we have recognized exceptions to the Rules but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. Every plea for a liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the Rules and by a justification for the requested liberal construction.[14] Where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, this Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.[15] | |||||