Requirements of liberal construction
Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
DAMASO SEBASTIAN and
TOMASA CARDENAS, petitioners,
vs.
HON. HORACIO R. MORALES, Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, LEONILA SARENAS[1],
JOSEPHINE SARENAS-DAYRIT, EVANGELINE
SARENAS, ESTRELITA SARENAS TAN, CECILIO
MARCOS SARENAS, MANUEL DEL SARENAS, DAISY
RITA SARENAS, and JOY SARENAS, respondents.
G.R. No. 141116
February 17, 2003
Ponente: Quisimbing, J.:
NATURE OF CASE
Appeal by certiorari
BRIEF
FACTS
Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas,
who died intestate onJune 27, 1986. During his lifetime,
Guillermo owned agricultural landholdings, all located inSamon
and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was also the
registered owner of parcelof agricultural land located in San
Ricardo, Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of
4.9993hectares, which was tenanted by Manuel Valentin and
Wenceslao Peneyra. The said tenants tilling the said farm lots had
already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No
27.The private respondents filed an application with the DAR
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, for retention over
the five hectares of the late Guillermos landholdings.
Among the lots which the private respondents sought to retain
under Section 6 of the CARP (RANo. 6657).On June 6, 1997, The
DAR Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga granted the
private respondents application.
Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the said
forgoing order before the DAR Regional Director. The DAR
Regional Director found out that the order was contrary to law
violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its implementing Rules
and Regulations. He, the DAR Regional Director, then issued a
new order dated October 23, 1997, which then instead allowed
private respondents to retain a parcel of the said land with an area
of 4.9993 hectares, covered by TCT No. 143564, located in San
Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija.
The privaterespondents then appealed the order to the DAR
secretary.
On June 18, 1998, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform set aside the
order dated October 23, 1997. Petitioner Sebastian then filed a
motion for reconsideration, but this motion was denied by the
DAR Secretary. T
he petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition, with prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction with the Court of Appeals. On March 9, 1999, the Court
of Appeals, without going into the merits, dismissed the case. It
found that the orders of the DAR Secretary sought to be reviewed
were final orders for they finally disposed of the agrarian case and
left nothing more to be decided on the merits. Hence, the proper
remedy available to petitioners was a petition for review pursuant
to Rule 43, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and
not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
The Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was subsequently
denied the same court. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners admit that there was error in the remedy resorted to
before the Court of Appeals. They contended that procedural rules
are but a means to an end and should be liberally construed to
effect substantial justice.
On the other hand, private respondents argue that while it is true
that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed, it is also
equally true that the Rules cannot be ignored.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
whether or not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 is valid and proper.
ACTION OF THE COURT
DAR: Granted motion of the private respondents
CA: Dismissed the case without going into the merits of the case
SC: Affirmed CA.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
Yes, the CA's dismissal of the case is valid and proper.
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.1a\^/phi1.net 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.
Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that
issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. 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. Concomitant to a liberal application of the
rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 dated
March 4, 1999, as well as the resolution of the appellate court
dated December 10, 1999, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aspect of Jurisdiction
BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND LOLITA G. TOLEDO
G.R. No. 173946
June 19, 2013
Ponente: PEREZ, J :
NATURE OF CASE
Petition for Review on Certiorari
BRIEF
FACTS
Private respondents are the heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas,
who died intestate onJune 27, 1986. During his lifetime,
Guillermo owned agricultural landholdings, all located inSamon
and Mayapyap Sur, Cabanatuan city. Guillermo was also the
registered owner of parcelof agricultural land located in San
Ricardo, Talaver, Nueva Ecija having a total area of
4.9993hectares, which was tenanted by Manuel Valentin and
Wenceslao Peneyra. The said tenants tilling the said farm lots had
already been issued emancipation patents pursuant to PD No
27.The private respondents filed an application with the DAR
Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga, for retention over
the five hectares of the late Guillermos landholdings.
Among the lots which the private respondents sought to retain
under Section 6 of the CARP (RANo. 6657).On June 6, 1997, The
DAR Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga granted the
private respondents application.
Petitioner, Sebastian moved for reconsideration of the said
forgoing order before the DAR Regional Director. The DAR
Regional Director found out that the order was contrary to law
violating Section 6 of RA No. 6657 and its implementing Rules
and Regulations. He, the DAR Regional Director, then issued a
new order dated October 23, 1997, which then instead allowed
private respondents to retain a parcel of the said land with an area
of 4.9993 hectares, covered by TCT No. 143564, located in San
Ricardo, Talavera, NuevaEcija.
The privaterespondents then appealed the order to the DAR
secretary.
On June 18, 1998, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform set aside the
order dated October 23, 1997. Petitioner Sebastian then filed a
motion for reconsideration, but this motion was denied by the
DAR Secretary. T
he petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition, with prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction with the Court of Appeals. On March 9, 1999, the Court
of Appeals, without going into the merits, dismissed the case. It
found that the orders of the DAR Secretary sought to be reviewed
were final orders for they finally disposed of the agrarian case and
left nothing more to be decided on the merits. Hence, the proper
remedy available to petitioners was a petition for review pursuant
to Rule 43, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and
not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
The Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was subsequently
denied the same court. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners admit that there was error in the remedy resorted to
before the Court of Appeals. They contended that procedural rules
are but a means to an end and should be liberally construed to
effect substantial justice.
On the other hand, private respondents argue that while it is true
that the Rules of Court should be liberally construed, it is also
equally true that the Rules cannot be ignored.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
whether or not the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the
petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 is valid and proper.
ACTION OF THE COURT
DAR: Granted motion of the private respondents
CA: Dismissed the case without going into the merits of the case
SC: Affirmed CA.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE CASE
Yes, the CA's dismissal of the case is valid and proper.
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.1a\^/phi1.net 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.
Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that
issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. 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. Concomitant to a liberal application of the
rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 51288 dated
March 4, 1999, as well as the resolution of the appellate court
dated December 10, 1999, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.