This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is settled that rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense,[52] for they have been adopted to help secure - not override - substantial justice.[53] Considering that litigation is not a game of technicalities[54] courts have been exhorted, time and again, to afford every litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case free from the constraints of technicalities. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that courts are empowered to suspend its rules, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.[55] No less than Section 3, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules provides that the provisions thereof are to "be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, summary, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding." | |||||
|
2008-11-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| If the Court strictly applies the aforequoted provision of law, it would simply pronounce that the Court of Appeals could not have admitted the corrected CENRO Certification because it was not formally offered as evidence before the MCTC during the trial stage. Nevertheless, since the determination of the true date when the subject property became alienable and disposable is material to the resolution of this case, it behooves this Court, in the interest of substantial justice, fairness, and equity, to consider the corrected CENRO Certification even though it was only presented during the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well recognized that the Court is empowered to suspend its rules or to exempt a particular case from the application of a general rule, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.[41] | |||||