Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUDGE ISMAEL O. BALDADO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
As expressed in Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."[19] Now we will address the main issue whether respondent Alzul is still entitled to consignation despite the lapse of the period provided by the Court in G.R. No. 109078 entitled Yu v. Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
As expressed in Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."[19] Now we will address the main issue whether respondent Alzul is still entitled to consignation despite the lapse of the period provided by the Court in G.R. No. 109078 entitled Yu v. Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 154064 2005-02-28	SPS. ERNESTO GUTIERREZ AND FELICISIMA B. GUTIERREZ v. PASCUAL B. CABRERA QUISUMBING, J.
Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals. In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners' attention to the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits.[31] The Court finds no reason why it should not afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While the Court has unquestionably the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter approach may result in injustice.[32] This is in accordance with Rule 1, Section 6[33] which encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.[34]
	GR No. 138777 2004-09-22	JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Paras vs. Baldado[11] and Alberto vs. Court of Appeals,[12] we ruled that "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."
	GR No. 151833 2003-08-07	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Paras vs. Baldado[11] and Alberto vs. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. x x x (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed."
	GR No. 142572 2002-02-20	REPUBLIC v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT CARPIO, J.
This issue has been settled in Rosa Yap Paras and Valente Dy Yap vs. Judge Ismael O. Baldado and Justo De Jesus Paras[14] wherein it was held that:"The filing of original actions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals is governed by Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the petition for certiorari "be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof x x x." The same Section provides that "the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition." (Emphasis supplied) This is the clear import of Sections 1, 2 and 3, Rule 46 (Original Cases) of the 1997 Rules which read in pertinent parts: