Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MEDISERV v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 209447 2015-08-11	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.[19] A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.[20] The party need not sign the verification. A party’s representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.[21]
	GR No. 166944 2014-08-18	JUANITO MAGSINO v. ELENA DE OCAMPO BERSAMIN, J.
The rules were instituted to be faithfully complied with,[38] and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of a party like the petitioner was impermissible.[39] Such rules, often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Their liberal construction in exceptional situations should then rest on a showing of justifiable reasons and of at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them.[40] We have repeatedly emphasized this standard. In Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, (4th Division),[41] for instance, we declared: The petitioners' plea for the application of the principles of substantial justice in their favor deserves scant consideration. The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. While the petitioners adverted to several jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no such consideration.
	GR No. 181277 2013-07-03	SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES v. TREASURER OF CITY OF MANILA SERENO, C.J.
A distinction between noncompliance and substantial compliance with the requirements of a certificate of non-forum shopping and verification as provided in the Rules of Court must be made.[22] In this case, it is undisputed that the Petition filed with the RTC was accompanied by a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping signed by Ms. Beleno, although without proof of authority from the board. However, this Court finds that the belated submission of the Secretary's Certificate constitutes substantial compliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.
	GR No. 172590 2013-01-07	MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON v. ENRIQUE HO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, simultaneous with the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, the proper certificate of non-forum shopping was submitted by the petitioner in Donato. Notably in this case, the SPA was submitted two months after the filing of Anderson's Motion for Reconsideration. It took that long because instead of executing an SPA before the proper authorities in Hawaii and sending the same to the Philippines, Anderson still waited until she came back to the country and only then did she execute one. It thus puzzles the Court why Anderson opted not to immediately submit the SPA despite her awareness that the same should have been submitted simultaneously with the Petition for Review. Hence, it cannot help but conclude that the delay in the submission of the SPA is nothing but a product of Anderson's sheer laxity and indifference in complying with the rules. It is well to stress that "[r]ules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitor's sweet time and own bidding."[41] They should be faithfully complied with[42] and may not simply be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.[43] Although they are liberally construed in some situations, there must, however, be a showing of justifiable reasons and at least a reasonable attempt at compliance therewith,[44] which unfortunately are not obtaining in this case.
	GR No. 168313 2010-10-06	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA BRION, J.
This same rule was echoed in Mediserv v. Court of Appeals[53] where we said in the course of allowing a liberal justification: It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice. [Emphasis supplied.]