Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA v. ISAAC Z. ZAULDA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 198172 2016-01-25	REGULUS DEVELOPMENT v. ANTONIO DELA CRUZ BRION, J.
The rule is that courts should not be unduly strict on procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. The higher objective of procedural rules is to ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[38]
	GR No. 203918 2015-12-02	SPS. AMADOR C. CAYAGO v. SPS. EVELITO CANTARA AND SOLEDAD CANTARA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Heirs of Amado A. Zaulda v. Zaulda,[43] the petitioners therein filed a motion for extension of time to file their petition for review on August 24, 2010, a day before the last day to appeal the decision of the RTC. However, the CA dismissed their appeal, ratiocinating that the ponente's office received the motion for extension of time only on January 5, 2011, at which time the period to appeal had long expired. In giving due course to the petition for review and considering it to have been timely filed, the Court ruled that it was the height of injustice for the CA to dismiss a petition just because the motion for extension reached the ponente's office beyond the last date prayed for. It found that the delay cannot be attributed to petitioners, who were unreasonably deprived of their right to be heard on the merits and were fatally prejudiced by the delay in the transmittal of records attributable to the court's inept or irresponsible personnel.[44]
	GR No. 189255 2015-06-17	JESUS G. REYES v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION PERALTA, J.
In any event, this Court's disquisition in the fairly recent case of Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Isaac Zaulda[14] regarding the import of procedural rules vis-a-vis the substantive rights of the parties, is instructive, to wit:[G]ranting, arguendo, that there was non-compliance with the verification requirement, the rule is that courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses which do not really impair the proper administration of justice. After all, the higher objective of procedural rule is to ensure that the substantive rights of the parties are protected. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Every party-litigant must be afforded ample opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.