ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 123561   July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 123561. July 31, 1997.]

    DELIA R. NERVES, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, COURT OF APPEALS AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORTS, Respondents.

    Froilan M. Bacungan & Associates for Petitioner.

    The Solicitor General for Respondents.

    SYNOPSIS


    Petitioner was one of the public school teachers administratively charged and subsequently dismissed by then Secretary Cariño of the DECS for allegedly participating in the mass action/illegal strike of teachers on 19-21 September 1990 at Liwasang Bonifacio, and for defying the Return-to-Work Order of the DECS in violation of the Civil Service Laws. Petitioner appealed the DECS Decision to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) who set aside the same and rendered a new one. Not happy, petitioner then elevated the CSC Decision to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari pursuant to Art. IX-A, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; but the Court of Appeals summarily dismissed the petition for being an inappropriate remedy. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to set aside the CA Resolution. The Court held that the petition filed in the Court of Appeals substantially complied with the Revised Administrative Circular 1-95.


    SYLLABUS


    REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR 1-95 SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR; THE ERRONEOUS LABELLING OF THE PETITION AS ONE FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT IS ONLY MINOR PROCEDURAL LAPSE, NOT FATAL TO THE APPEAL. — We hold that the petition filed by Nerves with the Court of Appeals substantially complied with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. That it was erroneously labelled as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only a minor procedural lapse, not fatal to the appeal. Although it is stated in par. 1 of her petition it is one" for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines" and, additionally, "under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court." The same par. 1 is explained by par. 2 which states that, "But per Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) petitioner is filing the instant petition with this Honorable Court (Court of Appeals) instead of the Supreme Court." It must be emphasized that as long as there is substantial compliance with Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the petition should be given due course. Moreover, the circular must be so interpreted and applied as to attain, not defeat, the ultimate purpose of all rules of procedure — which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.


    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to set aside the 27 November 1995 and 22 January 1996 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari of Delia R. Nerves filed pursuant to Art. IX-A, Sec. 7, of the Constitution, and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for being an inappropriate remedy or wrong mode of appeal.

    Petitioner Delia R. Nerves, a teacher of Torres High School, was among the twenty (20) public school teachers who were administratively charged and subsequently dismissed by then Secretary Isidro D. Cariño of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) for allegedly participating in the mass action/illegal strike of teachers on 19-21 September 1990 at Liwasang Bonifacio and for defying a Return-to-Work Order issued by DECS, which acts constituted grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and absence without official leave (AWOL), in violation of P.D. No. 807 otherwise known as The Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. 1

    Petitioner Nerves appealed the DECS Decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and later, "after a complicated procedure," to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC set aside the Decision and rendered a new one the dispositive portion of which reads —

    WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby finds Delia R. Nerves guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which she is meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension. Considering the period of time that she has been out of the service, the penalty of suspension is already deemed served. Accordingly, she is automatically reinstated in the service without back salaries. 2

    Nerves elevated the CSC Decision to the Court of Appeals in a 26-paged petition filed 21 November 1995 stating among others:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. This is a petition for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines and under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

    2. But per Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) petitioner is filing the instant petition with this Honorable Court instead of the Supreme Court. 3

    However, in a Resolution dated 27 November 1995, the Court of Appeals summarily dismissed the petition —

    The instant petition for certiorari filed on 21 November 1995 is hereby ordered dismissed outright for being the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal. (par. 4, Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90, dated 9 March 1990.)

    Under Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the Civil Service Commission is by petition for review (par. 1 and 5, supra.). Petition for certiorari dismissed. 4

    On 22 January 1996 the motion for reconsideration of the resolution was denied. 5 Hence the instant petition.

    The issue before us is whether respondent Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing outright the petition of 21 November 1995.

    Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) prescribing the rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies pertinently provides —

    (4) Period to appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment . . .

    (5) How appeal taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, a copy of which shall be served on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. Proof of service of the petition on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo shall be attached to the petition. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.cralaw:red

    Upon filing the petition for review, the petitioner shall pay to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs . . .

    (6) Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers; and, (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in Revised Circular No. 28-91. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.

    (7) Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of petitioner to comply with the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof.

    Similarly, under Circular 2-90 which lays down the guidelines in appeals to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court —

    (4) Erroneous appeal. — An appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.

    The Solicitor General contends that petitioner Nerves failed to fully comply with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 because what was filed with the Court of Appeals was, in form and substance, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not a petition for review, and that no less than petitioner herself stated in par. 1 of her petition: "This is a petition for certiorari . . . under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court," and the fact that it was qualified by par. 2 quoted above did not automatically convert it to a petition for review in compliance with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. 6

    A cursory reading of the records shows the following factual backdrop: (a) The petition was filed on 21 November 1995 or within 15 days from notice of the denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by the Civil Service Commission, which was on 6 November 1995; (b) The petition was verified, 7 with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party (DECS) and the court or agency a quo (Civil Service Commission). 8 The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals was indicated as such by petitioner; 9 (c) Upon filing the petition, petitioner paid to the Court of Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and deposited the sum of P500 for costs; and, (d) The petition stated the full names of the parties to the case, contained a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, accompanied by clearly legible certified copies of the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission that were sought to be set aside, stated the material dates and contained the required certification against forum-shopping.

    Prescinding from the foregoing, we hold that the petition filed by Nerves with the Court of Appeals substantially complied with Revised Administrative Circular 1-95. That it was erroneously labelled as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only a minor procedural lapse, not fatal to the appeal. Although it is stated in par. 1 of her petition it is one "for certiorari filed pursuant to Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Philippines," and, additionally, "under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court." The same par. 1 is explained by par. 2 which states that, "But per Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (Revised Circular No. 1-91) petitioner is filing the instant petition with this Honorable Court (Court of Appeals) instead of the Supreme Court." It must be emphasized that as long as there is substantial compliance with Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, the petition should be given due course. Moreover, the circular must be so interpreted and applied as to attain, not defeat, the ultimate purpose of all rules of procedure — which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. 10

    More importantly, the appeal on its face appears to be impressed with merit. Hence, the Court of Appeals should have overlooked the insubstantial defects of the petition — including the fact that the Civil Service Commission was impleaded as party respondent not otherwise required in par. 6 (a) of Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 — in order to do justice to the parties concerned. There is indeed nothing sacrosanct about procedural rules, which should be liberally construed in order to promote their object and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. 11 As it has been said, where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, 12 or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

    Besides, we have already ruled in A-One Feeds, Inc., v. Court of Appeals, 13 —

    Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice and thereby defeat their very aims. As has been the constant ruling of this Court, every party litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 27 November 1995 and 22 January 1996 are hereby SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is directed to REINSTATE the 21 November 1995 petition. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan, Hermosisima Jr. and Torres Jr., JJ., are on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 33; Annex "C."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. Id., p. 59; Annex "A."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. Id., p. 29; Annex "C."cralaw virtua1aw library

    4. Id., p. 28; Annex "B."cralaw virtua1aw library

    5. Id., p. 27; Annex "A."cralaw virtua1aw library

    6. Memorandum of the Solicitor General, pp. 5-8.

    7. Rollo, p. 55; Annex "C."cralaw virtua1aw library

    8. Id., pp. 56-57.

    9. Records, pp. 1-29.

    10. Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112547, 18 July 1994, 234 SCRA 192.

    11. Rule 1, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.

    12. Blanco v. Bernabe, 63 Phil. 124 (1936).

    13. No. L-35560, 30 October 1980, 100 SCRA 590, 594.

    G.R. No. 123561   July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED