Lawyerly

GR No. 157445

2013-04-03

BERSAMIN, J.

In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[27] a case where the petitioner did not attach to her petition for review a copy of the contract to sell that was at the center of controversy, the Court nonetheless found that there was a substantial compliance with the rule, considering that the petitioner had appended to the petition for review a certified copy of the decision of the MTC that contained a verbatim reproduction of the omitted contract.

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. 155025

2007-08-24

COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[5] Atillo v. Bombay[6] and Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[7] we ruled that petitioner's failure to attach certified true copies of such material parts of the record as would support the allegations in the petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.

GR No. 169501

2007-06-08

B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL

VELASCO, JR., J.

When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.[18]

GR No. 169501

2007-06-08

B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL

VELASCO, JR., J.

When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.[18]

GR NO. 160798

2005-06-08

JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

CALLEJO, SR., J.

If the CA 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 such case, then, the petition should be reinstated. As this Court emphasized in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz:[37]

GR No. 138777

2004-09-22

JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz,[9] this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, held 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."

GR No. 151833

2003-08-07

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz,[9] this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, held 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."

GR No. 138556

2001-05-09

PIGLAS-KAMAO v. NLRC

PANGANIBAN, J.

In any event, petitioners subsequently attached to their Motion for Reconsideration before the CA the supposedly lacking documents. Hence, pursuant to Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[8] the submission of such documents with the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the aforecited Rule.

GR No. 136096

2001-02-07

NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

In the recent case of Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz[7] the CA dismissed the petition of therein petitioner for failure to attach the certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition. We ruled that based on the case of Cadayona vs. CA[8], not all of the supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified. The documents attached by therein petitioner consisted only of the original duplicate copies of the assailed decisions and orders of the lower court but the Contract to Sell, a document central to the dispute, was not annexed. Nonetheless, we declared that there was substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 since the MTC Decision attached to the petition reproduced verbatim the Contract to Sell. Moreover, we noted that therein petitioner annexed in the Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision copies of the Contract to Sell, the Original Certificate of Title, the Tax Declaration of the land in dispute, and the notarized rescission of the Contract to Sell. The efforts of therein petitioner to substantiate her allegations in her petition were clearly evident, thereby warranting reasonable leniency. Thus, we remanded the case to the CA so that it could decide the case on the merits.

	GR No. 157445 2013-04-03	SEGUNDINA A. GALVEZ v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[27] a case where the petitioner did not attach to her petition for review a copy of the contract to sell that was at the center of controversy, the Court nonetheless found that there was a substantial compliance with the rule, considering that the petitioner had appended to the petition for review a certified copy of the decision of the MTC that contained a verbatim reproduction of the omitted contract.
	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. 155025 2007-08-24	COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[5] Atillo v. Bombay[6] and Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[7] we ruled that petitioner's failure to attach certified true copies of such material parts of the record as would support the allegations in the petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition.
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.[18]
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.[18]
	GR NO. 160798 2005-06-08	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
If the CA 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 such case, then, the petition should be reinstated. As this Court emphasized in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz:[37]
	GR No. 138777 2004-09-22	JOY G. TAN v. SALIC B. DUMARPA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz,[9] this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, held 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."
	GR No. 151833 2003-08-07	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz,[9] this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, held 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."
	GR No. 138556 2001-05-09	PIGLAS-KAMAO v. NLRC PANGANIBAN, J.
In any event, petitioners subsequently attached to their Motion for Reconsideration before the CA the supposedly lacking documents. Hence, pursuant to Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[8] the submission of such documents with the Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the aforecited Rule.
	GR No. 136096 2001-02-07	NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY GONZAGA-REYES, J.
In the recent case of Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz[7] the CA dismissed the petition of therein petitioner for failure to attach the certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition. We ruled that based on the case of Cadayona vs. CA[8], not all of the supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified. The documents attached by therein petitioner consisted only of the original duplicate copies of the assailed decisions and orders of the lower court but the Contract to Sell, a document central to the dispute, was not annexed. Nonetheless, we declared that there was substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 since the MTC Decision attached to the petition reproduced verbatim the Contract to Sell. Moreover, we noted that therein petitioner annexed in the Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision copies of the Contract to Sell, the Original Certificate of Title, the Tax Declaration of the land in dispute, and the notarized rescission of the Contract to Sell. The efforts of therein petitioner to substantiate her allegations in her petition were clearly evident, thereby warranting reasonable leniency. Thus, we remanded the case to the CA so that it could decide the case on the merits.

CORNELIA P. CUSI - HERNANDEZ v. SPS. EDUARDO DIAZ AND AMELIA MANGAHAS