Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ILDEFONSO SAMALA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185746 2016-01-20	LUCITA TIOROSIO-ESPINOSA v. PRESIDING JUDGE VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA JARDELEZA, J.
Although it is true that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice, this is not an inflexible tenet. After all, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.[30]
	GR No. 174411 2014-07-02	CITY OF DAGUPAN v. ESTER F. MARAMBA LEONEN, J.
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court allows for the remedy called a petition for relief from judgment. This is an equitable remedy "allowed in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy"[75] that will allow for substantive justice.
	GR NO. 151973 2009-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO PERALTA, J.
Maunlad Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. CA[69] and Samala v. Court of Appeals,[70] cited by the petitioner, cannot be applied on the present case. In Maunlad, We allowed the admission of the respondent's documentary exhibits, although its counsel had failed to formally offer them in evidence. We ruled that the failure of the respondent's counsel was excusable since the documents were in the possession of the petitioner. Since the documents were never in the possession of the respondent, and considering the amount of time that had passed since their presentation, it was understandable that they were overlooked when the time came to formally offer the evidence. We likewise ruled that a judgment based on the merits should prevail over the primordial interest of strict enforcement of matters of technicalities.
	GR No. 166386 2009-01-27	DOMINGA RUIZ v. CIRILA DELOS SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners insist that they are not bound by the mistake of their counsel, citing De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan[32] and Samala v. Court of Appeals.[33]
	GR No. 105608 2008-04-30	TIRSO D. MONTEROSO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, a disposition only ordering partial partition and without accounting, as petitioners presently urge, would be most impractical and against what we articulated in Samala v. Court of Appeals.[37] There, we cautioned courts against being dogmatic in rendering decisions, it being preferable if they take a complete view of the case and in the process come up with a just and equitable judgment, eschewing rules tending to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.