Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR JARO v. CA

This case has been cited 23 times or more.

	GR No. 172538 2012-04-25	ISABELO ESPERIDA v. FRANCO K. JURADO PERALTA, J.
It is settled that "subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure."[26] Time and again, this Court has held that a strict and rigid application of technicalities must be avoided if it tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.[27] Considering the nature of contempt proceedings and the fact that petitioners actually filed their Answer, albeit belatedly, the CA should have been more liberal in the application of the Rules and admitted the Answer.
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements. We ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions "the appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case."[38] (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 151349 2010-10-20	LEANDRO M. ALCANTARA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In these cases,[17] we ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements. We ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions "the appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case."[18]
	GR No. 166386 2009-01-27	DOMINGA RUIZ v. CIRILA DELOS SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners also allege that subsequent and substantial compliance with the rule may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure, citing our ruling in Jaro v. Court of Appeals.[34]
	GR No. 177931 2008-12-08	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DEANG MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In requesting for a 30-day extension or until June 11, 2006 to file answer, petitioner apparently reckoned the date from which the extension would start on May 12, 2006, which was not the last day of the 15-day period sought to be extended, it being May 5, 2006. By computation, petitioner actually sought more than 30 days, contrary to the period of extension it purportedly requested. The counting of the period was erroneous, even if one uses the material dates alleged by petitioner.[14] Petitioner clearly disregarded elementary rules[15] and jurisprudence[16] on the matter.
	GR No. 170625 2008-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA TINGA, J.
Moreover, petitioner attached to the motion for reconsideration certified true copies of the petition for rehabilitation and the annexes thereto, the verified comment, the omnibus comment and the comment on the receiver's recommendation filed by petitioner before the RTC. The subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance.[37] If the Court of Appeals opts to dismiss the petition outright and the petitioner files a motion for the reconsideration of such dismissal, appending thereto the requisite pleadings, documents or order/resolution with an explanation for the failure to append the required documents to the original petition, this would constitute substantial compliance with the Rules of Court. In that instance, then, the petition should be reinstated.[38]
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to respondent's subsequent submission of the complaint and answer as well as other material portions of the records of the case, the Court has ruled in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[19] Jaro v. Court of Appeals[20] and Donato v. Court of Appeals,[21] that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] is worth echoing: "Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[23] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.[24]
	GR NO. 143331 2007-10-05	FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC AZCUNA, J.
Rules of procedure are essential to the proper, efficient and orderly dispensation of justice. Such rules are to be applied in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.[56] Thus, the Court had the occasion to rule against the dismissal of appeals based solely on technicalities, especially so when the appellant had substantially complied with the formal requirements. Substantial compliance warrants a prudent and reasonable relaxation of the rules of procedure. Circumspect leniency will give the appellant the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint rather than to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities.[57] The Rules are relaxed when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and substantial justice.[58]
	GR NO. 153188 2007-08-14	JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Judicial policy dictates that courts ensure the full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. Cases should be determined on the merits, after giving full opportunity to all parties for the ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[22] As the Court expounded in Aguam v. Court of Appeals, [23] it is more prudent for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice.
	GR NO. 142628 2007-02-06	SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the radical conflict in the findings of the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB as regards the nature of the subject property necessitates a review of the present case. In this regard, the CA is in a better position to fully adjudicate the case for it can delve into the records to determine the probative value of the evidence supporting the findings of the Provincial Adjudicator and of the DARAB. In addition, the CA is empowered by its internal rules to require parties to submit additional documents, as it may find necessary to promote the ends of substantial justice, and further order the transmittal of the proper records for it to fully adjudicate the case. After all, it is an avowed policy of the courts that cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better.[44]
	GR NO. 144062 2006-11-02	BASES CONVERSION v. ELPIDIO UY VELASCO, JR., J.
Anent the lack of a BCDA Board Resolution authorizing Ramon P. Ereneta, such defect has been substantially complied with by the subsequent filing of a Letter of Authority[32] to represent and sign pleadings for and on behalf of BCDA in the instant case. In Jaro v. Court of Appeals, we had occasion to cite "ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure."[33] At any rate, this petty technicality deserves scant consideration where the question at issue is one purely of law and there is no need to delve into the veracity of the allegations in the petition. As we have held time and again, imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure are to be disregarded, except where substantial rights would otherwise be prejudiced.
	GR NO. 165793 2006-10-27	ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, the Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts, in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact 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.[10] Circumspect leniency will give the appellant "the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint rather than to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities."[11]
	GR NO. 148852 2006-09-27	MARILYN VALDECANTOS v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[24] Piglas-Kamao v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] Mendoza v. David,[26] the Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized.[27] Noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements when they filed their motion for reconsideration.[28]
	GR NO. 163569 2005-12-09	PHILIPPINE RADIANT PRODUCTS v. METROPOLITAN BANK CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner contends that the dismissal by the CA of the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 73241 due to the failure of respondent MBTC (the petitioner therein) to append a Resolution of its Board of Directors authorizing Patricia Uy to file the petition for and in its behalf and certified true copies of the orders subject thereof was with prejudice. This contention is not correct. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure plainly provides that such dismissal is without prejudice unless, otherwise, made upon motion and after hearing. So is the dismissal of the petition for failure of the petitioner to append thereto the requisite copies of the subject order/orders. Indeed, the subsequent submission of the requirements of Section 3, Rule 42 of the said Rules, at the initiative of the petitioner, is a compliance with said Rule.[55]
	GR No. 146197 2005-09-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
The rationale for requiring the statement of material dates is to determine the timeliness of filing of the petition. Clearly, Security Bank filed the motion for reconsideration with the trial court on time. Security Bank also filed the petition before the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period. The Court reiterates that there is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure.[24]
	GR NO. 140349 2005-06-29	SULPICIO LINES v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the manner required by the pertinent rules for the perfection of an appeal. Nevertheless, this Court has allowed the filing of an appeal upon subsequent compliance with the requirements imposed by law, where a strict application of the technical rules will impair the proper administration of justice. As enunciated by the Court in the case of Jaro v. Court of Appeals:[10]
	GR No. 146197 2005-06-27	SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
within the reglementary period. The Court reiterates that there is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure.[24] In the recent case of Great Southern Maritime Services Corporation v. Acuña,[25] we held that "the failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material dates in the petition may be excused since the dates are evident from
	GR NO. 149793 2005-04-15	WACK WACK GOLF v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Novelty Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court recognized the authority of the general manager to sue on behalf of the corporation and to sign the requisite verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The general manager is also one person who is in the best position to know the state of affairs of the corporation. It was also error for the CA not to admit the requisite proof of authority when in the Novelty case, the Court ruled that the subsequent submission of the requisite documents constituted substantial compliance with procedural rules. There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure in the interest of justice.[33] While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.[34] It was, therefore, reversible error for the CA to have dismissed the petition for certiorari before it. The ordinary recourse for us to take is to remand the case to the CA for proper disposition on the merits; however, considering that the records are now before us, we deem it necessary to resolve the instant case in order to ensure harmony in the rulings and expediency.
	GR NO. 150915 2005-04-11	MARIO MANABAN v. SARPHIL CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is axiomatic that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.[25] The timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party.[26] However, in some instances, the Court has allowed a liberal application of the rules of procedure. After all, they are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court - a strict and rigid application of technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[27]
	GR No. 148189 2004-11-11	EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT PANGANIBAN, J.
Time and time again, this Court has stressed that the ends of justice would be served better when cases are determined, not on mere technicality or some procedural nicety, but on the merits -- after all the parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses.[20] Lest it be forgotten, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they have been adopted to help secure -- not override --substantial justice.[21] For this reason, courts must proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; rather, they must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from the constraint of technicalities.[22]
	GR No. 154448 2003-08-15	DR. PEDRITO F. REYES v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals should have reconsidered its dismissal of petitioner's appeal after petitioner submitted a certified true copy of the MeTC's decision. It was clear from the petition for review that the RTC incurred serious errors in awarding damages to private respondents which were made without evidence to support the award and without any explanation...[17] In Jaro v. Court of Appeals,[18] we applied the rule on substantial compliance because the petitioner amended his defective petition and attached thereto the relevant annexes certified according to the rules. Thus -
	GR No. 141115 2003-06-10	POSADAS-MOYA v. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
We must stress that cases should be determined on the merits, after all parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections.[30] In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court.[31] A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.[32] In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[33]