Lawyerly

GR No. 163999

2014-07-09

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MILLARD R. OCAMPO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In closing, we must emphasize that while litigation is not a game of technicalities, this does not mean that procedural rules may be ignored at will or that their non-observance may be dismissed simply because it may prejudice a party's substantial rights.[67] Mere invocations of substantial justice and liberality are not enough for the court to suspend procedural rules.[68] Again, except only for the most compelling or persuasive reasons, procedural rules must be followed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[69]

GR Nos. 197942-43

2014-03-26

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS

REYES, J.

While the question of whether to give due course to the petitions is addressed to the discretion of the Court,[63] it behooves PAGCOR to observe the applicable rules and keep in mind that the Court will not take lightly any non-observance of our settled rules as if they are mere technicalities.[64] A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the special civil action of certiorari. As we discussed in Republic of the Philippines v. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, et al.:[65]

GR No. 192986

2013-01-15

ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD

REYES, J.

The decision on whether or not to accept a petition for certiorari, as well as to grant due course thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[15] A petition for certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, the party seeking to avail of the same must strictly observe the procedural rules laid down by law, and non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality.[16]

GR No. 180687

2010-10-06

ESMERALDO C. ROMULLO v. SAMAHANG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY NG BAYANIHAN COMPOUND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

NACHURA, J.

A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA, as in this case, may file before this Court a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from. Petitioners, instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, an improper remedy. By availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits outright dismissal.[11]

GR No. 171565

2010-07-13

ANTONIO B. RAMOS v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly followed in the interest of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will. It bears emphasizing that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[33] In this case, there was nary a cogent reason to depart from the general rule.

GR No. 167938

2009-02-19

HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Likewise, by availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits an outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90[21] which provides that, "an appeal taken to either Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed."[22]

GR No. 177271

2007-05-04

BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941 v. COMELEC

GARCIA, J.

xxx committed grave abuse of discretion ... when it granted the assailed accreditations even without simultaneously determining whether the nominees of herein private respondents are qualified or not, or whether or not the nominees are likewise belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim to represent in Congress, in accordance with No. 7 of the eight-point guidelines prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang Bagong Bayani[11] case which states that, "not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees." In the case of private respondents, public respondent Comelec granted accreditations without the required simultaneous determination of the qualification of the nominees as part of the accreditation process of the party-list organization itself. (Words in bracket added; italization in the original)[12] The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their petition. For, such course of action would entail going over and evaluating the qualities of the sectoral groups or parties in question, particularly whether or not they indeed represent marginalized/underrepresented groups. The exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record.[13] The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.[14]

GR NO. 137187

2006-08-03

CARMELITA V. LIM v. VS. BENJAMIN T. VIANZON

TINGA, J.

[36] Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 611 (2001).

GR NO. 140102

2006-02-09

UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA

CORONA, J.

It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[12] Petitioner furthermore wants us to set aside the award of separation benefits to respondents Vales and Cerdenia in the amounts of P27,885 and P21,450, respectively - a factual finding of the labor arbiter which was affirmed by the NLRC and upheld by the Court of Appeals.

GR NO. 140086

2005-06-08

TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the subsequent case of Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[34] where a Petition for Certiorari was not accompanied by copies of the pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, this Court held:It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.

GR No. 147420

2004-06-10

CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF v. NLRC

CARPIO, J.

The appellate court's jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[10] An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11] It does not include correction of the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings. Such findings are generally accorded not only respect but also finality.[12] A party assailing such findings bears the burden of showing that the tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy, in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie.[13]

GR No. 143604

2003-06-20

PRISCO LANZADERAS v. AMETHYST SECURITY

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners now urge this Court to ignore technicalities and brush aside the procedural requirements so this case may be decided "on the merits." Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary, however, for an effective and expeditious administration of justice. It is settled that a party who seeks to avail of certiorari must observe the rules thereon and non-observance of said rules may not be brushed aside as "mere technicality."[23] While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of procedure should not be enforced strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still it does not follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation, assessment and just resolution of the issues.[24] Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for compelling reasons.[25]

	GR No. 163999 2014-07-09	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MILLARD R. OCAMPO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In closing, we must emphasize that while litigation is not a game of technicalities, this does not mean that procedural rules may be ignored at will or that their non-observance may be dismissed simply because it may prejudice a party's substantial rights.[67] Mere invocations of substantial justice and liberality are not enough for the court to suspend procedural rules.[68] Again, except only for the most compelling or persuasive reasons, procedural rules must be followed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[69]
	GR Nos. 197942-43 2014-03-26	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS REYES, J.
While the question of whether to give due course to the petitions is addressed to the discretion of the Court,[63] it behooves PAGCOR to observe the applicable rules and keep in mind that the Court will not take lightly any non-observance of our settled rules as if they are mere technicalities.[64] A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the special civil action of certiorari. As we discussed in Republic of the Philippines v. Abdulwahab A. Bayao, et al.:[65]
	GR No. 192986 2013-01-15	ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH IN LENDING v. BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY BOARD REYES, J.
The decision on whether or not to accept a petition for certiorari, as well as to grant due course thereto, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[15] A petition for certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, the party seeking to avail of the same must strictly observe the procedural rules laid down by law, and non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality.[16]
	GR No. 180687 2010-10-06	ESMERALDO C. ROMULLO v. SAMAHANG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY NG BAYANIHAN COMPOUND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION NACHURA, J.
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the CA, as in this case, may file before this Court a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from. Petitioners, instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, an improper remedy. By availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits outright dismissal.[11]
	GR No. 171565 2010-07-13	ANTONIO B. RAMOS v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly followed in the interest of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will. It bears emphasizing that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[33] In this case, there was nary a cogent reason to depart from the general rule.
	GR No. 167938 2009-02-19	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Likewise, by availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal, the petition merits an outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90[21] which provides that, "an appeal taken to either Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed."[22]
	GR No. 177271 2007-05-04	BANTAY REPUBLIC ACT OR BA-RA 7941 v. COMELEC GARCIA, J.
xxx committed grave abuse of discretion ... when it granted the assailed accreditations even without simultaneously determining whether the nominees of herein private respondents are qualified or not, or whether or not the nominees are likewise belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector they claim to represent in Congress, in accordance with No. 7 of the eight-point guidelines prescribed by the Honorable Supreme in the Ang Bagong Bayani[11] case which states that, "not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees." In the case of private respondents, public respondent Comelec granted accreditations without the required simultaneous determination of the qualification of the nominees as part of the accreditation process of the party-list organization itself. (Words in bracket added; italization in the original)[12] The Court is unable to grant the desired plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for cancellation of accreditation on the grounds thus advanced in their petition. For, such course of action would entail going over and evaluating the qualities of the sectoral groups or parties in question, particularly whether or not they indeed represent marginalized/underrepresented groups. The exercise would require the Court to make a factual determination, a matter which is outside the office of judicial review by way of special civil action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must be decided on the undisputed facts on record.[13] The sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.[14]
	GR NO. 137187 2006-08-03	CARMELITA V. LIM v. VS. BENJAMIN T. VIANZON TINGA, J.
[36] Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 611 (2001).
	GR NO. 140102 2006-02-09	UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA CORONA, J.
It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[12] Petitioner furthermore wants us to set aside the award of separation benefits to respondents Vales and Cerdenia in the amounts of P27,885 and P21,450, respectively - a factual finding of the labor arbiter which was affirmed by the NLRC and upheld by the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 140086 2005-06-08	TEOVILLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. EDWARD L. FERREIRA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the subsequent case of Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[34] where a Petition for Certiorari was not accompanied by copies of the pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, this Court held:It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.
	GR No. 147420 2004-06-10	CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
The appellate court's jurisdiction to review a decision of the NLRC in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.[10] An extraordinary remedy, a petition for certiorari is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[11] It does not include correction of the NLRC's evaluation of the evidence or of its factual findings. Such findings are generally accorded not only respect but also finality.[12] A party assailing such findings bears the burden of showing that the tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy, in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie.[13]
	GR No. 143604 2003-06-20	PRISCO LANZADERAS v. AMETHYST SECURITY QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners now urge this Court to ignore technicalities and brush aside the procedural requirements so this case may be decided "on the merits." Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary, however, for an effective and expeditious administration of justice. It is settled that a party who seeks to avail of certiorari must observe the rules thereon and non-observance of said rules may not be brushed aside as "mere technicality."[23] While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of procedure should not be enforced strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still it does not follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation, assessment and just resolution of the issues.[24] Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for compelling reasons.[25]

SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC. v. CA