This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In its Motion for Reconsideration,[1] petitioner seeks the reversal of this Court's Decision[2] dated May 2, 2006, and the referral of this case to the Court En Banc allegedly due to its inconsistency with the rulings in Monarch Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals[3] and Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd.[4] (GAFLAC). | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner, citing Monarch Insurance Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [15] contends that respondent's claim for damages should only be against the insurance proceeds and limited to its pro-rata share in view of the doctrine of limited liability. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| It must be stressed at this juncture that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice should not be allowed; technicality should not be permitted to prevent the equitable and complete resolution of the rights and obligations of the parties.[10] No procedural rule is sacrosanct if such shall result in subverting justice.[11] The Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide judicial action is that a party 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.[12] Thus, in New Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. v. NLRC,[13] as in other meritorious cases, the Court allowed, in the higher interest of justice, an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC which was several months late. | |||||