(c) Theyshall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights;
(d)The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, tobe exercised atthe pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, butis the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion.
2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend proceduralrules(a) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it.
(b)To relieve alitigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply withthe prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magicalincantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules.
(c) Where substantial and important issues await resolution.
(d) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved.
(e)The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practiceand procedure necessarily carrieswith it the power to overturn judicial precedents on pointsof remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court.
D. Nature of Philippine Courts
Philippine courts areboth courts oflaw andequity.
Sec.5, Art. VIII, Constitution
Andres vs. Cabrera
, 127 SCRA 802
Whatconstitutes agood and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionaryupon courts(
CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp
., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006)Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules:(a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances(b) merits of the case(c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules(d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and(e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (
Sarmiento v. Zaratan
, GR 167471, Feb. 5,2007)
Cu-Unjieng v. CA
, 479 SCRA 594
Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores
, 469 SCRA 416
Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago
, G.R. 170354, June 30, 2006
Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal (
US v. Tamparong
,31 Phil. 321)