This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the CA has no jurisdiction over respondent’s appeal; hence, it cannot perform any action on the same except to order its dismissal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50[39] of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the act of the CA in referring respondent’s wrongful appeal before it to the CTA under the guise of furthering the interests of substantial justice is blatantly erroneous, and thus, stands to be corrected. In Anderson v. Ho,[40] the Court held that the invocation of substantial justice is not a magic wand that would readily dispel the application of procedural rules,[41] viz.:x x x procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, we allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Party litigants and their counsels are well advised to abide by rather than flaunt, procedural rules for these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice. [42] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||