Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROUEL AD. REYES v. SPS. PEPITO AND MARTA TORRES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 168990 2006-06-16	TERESITA S. BARRANCO v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[17]
	GR NO. 160753 2005-06-28	JIMMY L. BARNES v. MA. LUISA C. QUIJANO PADILLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Private respondents harp on the fact that the Court applied procedural rules liberally in favor of the petitioner which they consider an injustice. They, however, must realize that the Rules of Court itself calls for its liberal construction, with the view of promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[5] The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[6] In numerous cases, the Court has allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals, when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[7] As the Court has expounded in Aguam vs. Court of Appeals:[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]