Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Asia United Bank Vs Goodland Company Inc

GR No. 188051
November 22, 2010

Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction of the
rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, litigations should, as
much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. This does not
mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration
of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing
for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the
settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and
procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of
procedural rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the
substantive rights of the litigants.

x x x. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for
persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. x x x.

Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or
suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed. Further, a bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice will not suffice to override a
stringent implementation of the rules

IA1 Erwin Magcamit Vs Internal Affairs Service – Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
GR No. 198140
January 25, 2016

Administrative determinations of contested cases are by their nature quasi-judicial; there is no


requirement for strict adherence to technical rules that are observed in truly judicial proceedings. As a
rule, technical rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings in order "to
assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and
defenses." By relaxing technical rules, administrative agencies are, thus, given leeway in coming up with
a decision.

Nonetheless, in deciding disciplinary cases pursuant to their quasi-judicial powers, administrative


agencies must still comply with the fundamental principle of due process. Administrative tribunals
exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject
to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented
before them.

Due process in administrative cases, in essence, is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling. For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable
opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met.
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad Vs CSC
GR No. 182267
August 28, 2009

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.18 However, technical rules of
procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules
are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities.
Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even
the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation
speedily and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard.

This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. However, exigencies and situations
might occasionally demand flexibility in their application. In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the
rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases
on the merit. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving
all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should,
thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed,
the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of
contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the
administration of justice.

In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, the Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to
suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b)
the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the other party will not be
unjustly prejudiced thereby.