This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules of procedure may be relaxed, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.[50] Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will not be entertained if it will only obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration.[51] It is a prerogative duly embedded in jurisprudence, as in Alcantara v. Philippine Commercial and International Bank,[52] where the Court had the occasion to reiterate that:x x x In appropriate cases, the courts may liberally construe procedural rules in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the court of its authority. The aforementioned conditions are present in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In their Reply,[19] petitioners call the attention of the Court to the fact that their counsels, Atty. Guillergan and Atty. Leynes, have already submitted their MCLE Certificates for the Fourth Compliance Period[20] on March 26, 2014 and May 5, 2014, respectively. They opined that an outright dismissal of this petition on a mere technical ground as inconsistent with the ruling of the Court in Alcantara v. The Phil. Commercial and International Bank[21] where it was held that rules of procedure were mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. As regards this issue, petitioners ask the Court's liberality. | |||||
|
2014-10-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The defects in the SPA notwithstanding, we rule in favor of ZMC. We agree with the Dissent registered by Associate Justice Ruben Ayson when he suggested that ZMC should be given the opportunity to rectify the defects in the petition. We are aware that the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 28 January 2009 had directed ZMC to submit an SPA. ZMC had in good faith complied by submitting an SPA which it thought was sufficient and encompasses the filing of the instant suit. Time and again, we had espoused the doctrine that provisions of the Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Otherwise put, the rule requiring a certification of forum shopping to accompany every initiatory pleading, or the verification for that matter "should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible."[17] While it is true that the rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of court docket is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. This Court has time and again reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[18] | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Contrary to Uniwide's claim, the records of the case show that the petition's verification page contains Trajano's competent evidence of identity, specifically, Passport No. XX041470.[47] Trajano's failure to furnish Uniwide a copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a minor error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of substantial justice. This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application of the Rules of Procedure when the party has shown substantial compliance with it.[48] In these cases, we have held that the rules of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for which it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of cases.[49] We maintain this ruling in this procedural aspect of this case. | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that "the rules of procedure are mere tools aimed at facilitating the attainment of justice, rather than its frustration. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities."[30] "Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of [procedural rules], and their relaxation or suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed."[31] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With the foregoing, it is clear that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the NLRC which dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In cases such as this, the Court normally remands the case to the NLRC and directs it to properly dispose of the case on the merits. "However, when there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of petitioner's case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time-consuming procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the case."[35] "It is already an accepted rule of procedure for us to strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding, leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of litigation. If, based on the records, the pleadings, and other evidence, the dispute can be resolved by us, we will do so to serve the ends of justice instead of remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings."[36] We have gone over the records before us and we are convinced that we can now altogether resolve the issue of the validity of petitioner's dismissal and hence, we shall proceed to do so. | |||||