LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION V STRICT CONSTRUCTION

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, V. CAOIBES,

FACTS:
this Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Public Estates Authority
(PEA) assails and seeks to set aside the two Orders 1 of Branch 253, of the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, in Civil Case
No. LP-97-0034.

PETITION
On October 2, 1997, the respondent court issued an Order that the Motion to Dismiss was not filed in relation to Civil
Case No. LP-97-0034 for not complying with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. (Change of
electronic email address)

Meanwhile, the Complaint in subject civil case was amended due to the death of one of the defendants, The petitioner
submitted a manifestation and motion, asking that its previously filed answer be used as its answer to the amended complaint.
However, the respondent court rejected the same in its second Order from December 5, 1997, for non compliance of Section 13,
Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.(Failure to appear)

ISSUE:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library appear

1. WON Respondent Judge Acted with Grave Abuse of Discretion in relation to the pleading entitled Motion to dismiss and
manifestation and motion filed by the petitioner through registered email, as not being filed due to non compliance with rule 13
sections 11 and 13 of 1997 rules of court

2. WON Revised Rules of Court should be liberally construed

RULING:

1. YES - the court finds the explanation in subject Motion to Dismiss of petitioner be acceptable, although not strictly in
compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, considering that petitioner apparently did not
ignore the rule.

that the petitioner's Manifestation and Motion, dated November 28, 1997, is not a disputable motion, so the admission
of it would not affect the adverse party's rights with regard to the failure of the petitioner to comply with the required proof of
service under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The aforementioned pleading was not even required
to be filed because, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petitioner's earlier-filed Answer
could serve as the answer to the private respondent's Amended Complaint.

2. YES - Section 6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:

"SECTION 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing just
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."
Despite the fact that procedural rules are meant to make achieving justice easier, their strict application can lead to
technicalities that serve more to delay or frustrate proceedings than to advance substantive justice.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, the questioned Orders of the respondent court dated October 2, and December 5,
1997, respectively, in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034 are SET ASIDE.