This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The petitioners' arguments are devoid of merit. The subsequent compliance with the requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance. While the Court, in certain cases, has excused non-compliance with the requirement to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping, such liberal posture has always been grounded on special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified or inequitable.[29] | |||||
|
2014-09-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, the merit of respondent's case does not warrant the liberal application of the aforesaid rules. The fact that the instant case anchors on one of the most cherished constitutional rights afforded to an employee is of no moment since the Rules of Court may not be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution.[54] While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it must be emphasized that procedural rules should not likewise be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might result in prejudice to a party's substantial rights.[55] Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[56] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory so much so that non-compliance could only be tolerated by special circumstances and compelling reasons.[26] This Court has held that when there are several petitioners, all of them must execute and sign the certification against forum shopping; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case.[27] True, we held that in some cases, execution by only one of the petitioners on behalf of the other petitioners constitutes substantial compliance with the rule on the filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping on the ground of common interest or common cause of action or defense.[28] We, however, find that common interest is not present in the instant petition. To recall, Canoy's and Pigcaulan's complaints were consolidated because they both sought the same reliefs against the same respondents. This does not, however, mean that they share a common interest or defense. The evidence required to substantiate their claims may not be the same. A particular evidence which could sustain Canoy's action may not effectively serve as sufficient to support Pigcaulan's claim. | |||||