Rule 1: General Provisions

BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS vs. CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL (Jan. 24, 2011)

Facts:
Petitioner filed a Complaint charging respondents with Falsification and Use of Falsified Documents alleging that respondents falsified and
used the Barangay Clearance and Official Receipt purportedly issued in the name of CPC by the office of the petitioner. However, Office of the
Prosecutor held that no probable cause exists against them.

Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the CA. But before it, petitioner sought for an extension of time of 15 days from 13
May 2005 or until 28 May 2005 within which to file the same due to counsels’ heavy workload. The CA granted the extension on 23 May 2005.
Subsequently, petitioner asked for another extension of five days from 28 May 2005 until 2 June 2005 for same reason. However, petitioner filed
the petition by mail only on 7 June 2005. Because of these, the CA dismissed the Petition for Review on 21 July 2005.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration explaining that it also filed a Final Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Review asking for
another five days from 2 June 2005 or until 7 June 2005 on account of the sudden death in the family of the handling counsel. The CA do not find
petitioner's reasons to be compelling to grant another extension. Thus, CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration and disregarded the final
motion for extension. However, Petitioner harps on the policy of liberal construction and believes that if only the CA examined the records of the
case, it would find that the substantial merits of the case are enough to override technical deficiencies. Thus, the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the policy of liberal construction in setting aside the rules of technicalities is applicable in the present case.

Held:
No. Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that court may grant an additional period of 15 days only within which to file the
petition for review and no further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason. It is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly followed in the interest of substantial justice. It does not mean that the Rules of
Court may be ignored at will. It bears emphasizing that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of
reasons.
 
While petitioner cites several jurisprudence wherein this Court set aside procedural rules, an imperative existed in those cases that
warranted a liberal application of the rules. We have examined the records of this case, however, and we are convinced that the present case is
not attended by such an imperative that justifies relaxation of the rules. Moreover, as pointed out by respondents, petitioner had not only once
transgressed procedural rules. This Court has previously held that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit
the deserving. Petitioners low regard of procedural rules only shows that it is undeserving of their relaxation.