redena v ca

From the petition, it is clear that this Court is called upon to relax the application of procedural rules, or
suspend them altogether, in favor of petitioner’s substantial rights. There is no doubt as to the power of
this Court to do that. In a fairly recent case, we reiterated:

The Court has often stressed that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the
dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion.
In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm
that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way
around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is
always within our power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its operation.12

(1964 rules) The Rules itself expressly states in Section 2 of Rule 1 that the rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Courts, therefore, not only have the power
but the duty to construe and apply technical rules liberally in favor of substantive law and substantial
justice. Furthermore, this Court, unlike courts below, has the power not only to liberally construe the
rules, but also to suspend them, in favor of substantive law or substantial rights. Such power inherently
belongs to this Court, which is expressly vested with rule-making power by no less than the Constitution.

Vda de Victoria v ca

Late nag-file ng appeal. Nag certiorari under r65 (dapat r41). The statement of material dates as to
timeliness of the filing of the petition is incomplete

H: Although it has been said time and again that litigation is not a game of technicalities, that every case
must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly
presented and justly resolved, this does not mean that procedural rules may altogether be disregarded.
Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive reasons, they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part
of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules

In the case at bar, petitioner has not provided any cogent explanation that would absolve him of the
consequences of his repeated failure to abide by the rules.

Pnb v ca 1987

At any rate, although actions for recovery of real property and for partition are real actions, however,
they are actions in personam that bind only the particular individuals who are parties thereto. 19 The
PNB not being a party in said cases is not bound by the said decisions. Nor does it appear that the PNB
was aware of the said decisions when it extended the above describe mortgage loans. Indeed, if the PNB
knew of the conjugal nature of said properties it would not have approved the mortgage applications
covering said properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the consent of all the other heirs or
co-owners thereof. Moreover, when said properties were sold at public auction, the PNB was a
purchaser for value in good faith. So its right thereto is beyond question.

Tesorero v mathay

2. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; LITIGATION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THEIR MERITS AND

NOT ON TECHNICALITIES; CASE AT BAR. — It will be noted that after receipt of the
questioned decision of December 6, 1983 on December 19, 1983, petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration thereof only on January 5, 1984, or seventeen (17) days
from receipt of the said decision, which therefore had already become final and
executory. They received a copy of the order of June 25, 1984 and of October 31, 1984
informing them of said denial on December 3, 1984. But while it is evident that there
was error in the remedy resorted to, this Court in the broader interests of justice has in
a number of cases given due course to a petition for certiorari, although the proper
remedy is appeal especially where the equities warrant such recourse and considering
that dismissals on technicalities are viewed with disapproval (Marahay v. Melicon etc.
Et. Al., G.R. L-44980, Feb. 6, 1990 citing Perlas v. Concepcion, 3 Phil. 559 [1916];
Alfonso v. Yatco, 80 Phil. 407 [1948]). Furthermore, it is well settled that litigations
should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities (Galdo
v. Rosete, 84 SCRA 239, 242-243 [1978]); that every party-litigant must be afforded
the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from
unacceptable plea of technicalities (Heirs of Ceferino Morales v. Court of Appeals, 67
SCRA 304, 310 [1975]); that this Court, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction, decided
to disregard technicalities in order to resolve the case on its merits based on evidence
(St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc., Et. Al. v. Cleofas, 121 SCRA 287 [1983]; Helmuth, Jr. v.
People of the Philippines, 112 SCRA 573 [1982]). A careful review of the records show
that this case will not only affect herein petitioners who on some points have a good
cause of action but also the more or less 70,000 consumers in Davao City and its
environs. Hence, it appears more appropriate to consider the petition on its merits
rather than to dismiss it on technicalities.

Manila hotel v ca

xxxxLiberal construction of the rule has been allowed by this Court in the following cases: (1) where a
rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, especially if a party successfully
shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face
or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3)
where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the
court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

xxxx

Petitioner contends that the omission of the required documents is due to "oversight" or
"inadvertence." In Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,10 however, the Court
held that "oversight" and "excusable negligence" have become an all too familiar and ready excuse on
the part of lawyers remiss in their bounden duty to comply with established rules. Rules of procedure
are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice,
such that strict adherence thereto is required. The application of the Rules may be relaxed only when
rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and substantial justice.

In the case at bar, petitioner has not shown any cogent reason for the Court to be liberal in the
application of the rules.11 Hence, the dismissal of its petition by the Court of Appeals on technical
grounds must be sustained.