In Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149580, March 16, 2005.

Where the petitioner was held by the Ombudsman Guilty of dishonesty

and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and a penalty of
dismissal from service. The Court ruled that:
Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the
rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the
attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it. A strict and rigid
application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would
subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair
trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to
defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every partylitigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of
technicalities.
Although the granting of a motion for extension of time to file a
petition for review is within the discretion of the CA, we rule that
the CA incorrectly denied the same solely on the basis of
the petitioners procedural lapses, especially considering
the special and exceptional circumstances surrounding
the case.
The records of the case buttress the petitioners contention that
the delay in filing the motion was not intended to delay the
administration of justice.
Xxx
Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice
could be attributed to the petitioner, a one-day delay does not
justify the appeals denial. Moreover, under the policy of social
justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the
interests of the working class on the humane justification that
those with less privilege in life should have more in law;
Further, the petitioner was meted the penalty of dismissal from
the service, an extreme penalty that will have injurious effects
on her career and even her personal life. The petitioner claims
that the penalty is too harsh and not commensurate to the
infractions she allegedly committed. We are inclined to allow a
review of such decision in order to prevent any doubts as to the
propriety of the penalty, and to insure that no injustice would be
done to the petitioner.

Further, in Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, G.R. No.

142937, 15 November 2005, 475 SCRA 41.

Where the appeal was filed beyond the 15-day period, the Court ruled that:
It has been held that a one-day delay does not justify the
appeals denial where no element of intent to delay the
administration of justice could be attributed to the petitioner.
Needless to stress, the real purpose behind the limitation of the
period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay
in the administration of justice and to put an end to
controversies.
In this case, the Court is inclined to excuse the one-day delay, in
order to fully settle the merits of the case. After all, the policy of
our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits
of an appeal.
Also in, Heirs of Crisostomo v Rudex International Development Corp.,
G.R. No. 176129, 24 August 2011.
Where the appeal was filed one day beyond the reglementary period in
filing an appeal, the Court sited several cases where xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period
of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the
administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.
Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice
could be attributed to petitioners, a one-day delay does not
justify their petitions dismissal.
In Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales v. Pennisi,
this Court elucidated on the rules on reglementary periods, to
wit:
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not
only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform
to the rules will render the judgment sought to be
reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception,
unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due
course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on
the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as
serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave

miscarriage thereof. The purpose behind the limitation of

the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in
the administration of justice and to put an end to
controversies.
In Samala v. Court of Appeals, we said:
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate
the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application
especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.
Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality.
Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to
justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy,
deserves scant consideration from the courts.