Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
However, the Supreme Court is careful to point out that procedural rules should be respected and observed, and cannot just be disregarded by invoking the interest of justice. If it is to be invoked as a basis for failure to meet procedural requirements, the movant should give a good justification. The High Court stated that:
"... the bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' is not a magic wand that will automatically compel courts to suspend procedural rules." (Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298)
Cases:
1) Dr. Joseph L. Malixi et al vs. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar, GR No. 208224, November 22, 2017
Petitioners Dr. Malixi et al filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Baltazar for gross misconduct. The case was filed before the Civil Service Commission.
The CSC dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping. The CSC denied the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, prompting them to appeal the case before the Court of Appeals.
The CA dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, namely:
1. The Petitioners did not state the date they received the CA decision, and the date they filed their Motion for Reconsideration;
2. The attached Decision and Resolution are mere photocopies;
3. The Mandatory Compliance Legal Education (MCLE) compliance date of the Petitioners' counsel is not stated;
4. There is no proof of competent evidence of identities.
The CA denied the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. This prompted the Petitioners to bring the case before the Supreme Court.
Petitioners maintain that they indicated the important dates in their appeal before the Court of Appeals and that they attached certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. However, they admit that they failed to indicate the date of their counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance and to provide proof of "competent evidence of identities."
In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that procedural rules should be observed for the orderly administration of justice. However, there are certain exceptions.
Citing Aguam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated:
The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.
2) Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298
Jose F. Latogan was charged and convicted of murder in a Decision dated June 5, 2015. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which the notice stated:
Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.
The RTC denied this Motion because it did not state the date on which it is to be set for hearing, contrary to the provision of the Rules of Court.
On July 24, 2015, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the notice on the ground that the Decision had become final.The Accused filed a special civil action for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of Appeals but this was dismissed by the CA on technical grounds.
Almost five months after receipt of the Resolution dated September 29, 2015, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration on March 14, 2016. He claimed that he stands to serve reclusion perpetua for a heinous crime he purportedly committed; and that his petition was meant to correct the order of the RTC judge denying his appeal. Considering the judge's blatant and grave error in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide, and in the interest of justice, technicalities should be set aside and his petition, as well as the notice of app al, should be given due course.22
In the meantime, the CA in the Resolution dated February 26, 2016 denied due course to petitioner's Notice of Appeal for being erroneous and belatedly filed remedy.
Undeterred, petitioner filed the present petition arguing that the CA gravely erred in denying his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal.25 Essentially, he points out to the Court that his conviction carries a prison term of reclusion perpetua which, standing alone, is a circumstance exceptional enough to allow him the opportunity to challenge the RTC's Decision for reasons of equity and substantial justice.
We grant the petition.
The notice in the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner before the RTC reads as follows:
NOTICE:
The CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Br. 6, Justice Hall,
Baguio City
Sir:
Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.
Thank you very much.
The notification prays for the submission of the motion for reconsideration for hearing but without stating the time, date, and place of the hearing of the motion. This is not the notice of hearing contemplated under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 1527 of the Rules of Court. The rules are explicit and clear. The notice of hearing shall state the time and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three days in advance. The reason is obvious: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court would have no way to determine whether the other party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.
The Court is well aware of the judicial mandate that rules prescribing the time which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. With respect to notices of hearing of motions, in particular, the Court has consistently warned that a notice of hearing which does not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper and would not merit any consideration from the Court.
However, procedural rules were precisely conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court enjoins the liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote its objective to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.30 As to be discussed below, given the realities obtaining in this case, the liberal construction of the rules will better promote and secure a just determination of petitioner's culpability.
The CA likewise pointed out several procedural infirmities in petitioner's petition for certiorari, such as: (1) the lack of motion for reconsideration from the trial court's order denying petitioner's notice of appeal; (2) failure to implead the respondent People of the Philippines in the petition and furnish the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy of the petition; (3) lack of proof of service and affidavit of service as to whether the petition was served by personal service or by registered mail; and (4) failure to prove that the petition was timely filed. Records show as well that petitioner's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's September 29, 2015 Resolution was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period and, as a consequence, it already attained finality which bars any review. On this ground alone, his petition was properly dismissed outright.
Withal, as in the liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing, the Court has enumerated the factors that justify the relaxation of the rule on immutability of final judgments to serve the ends of justice, including: (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.
In one case, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's Decision. According to the CA, the RTC decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments. Upon petition for review, though; the Court relaxed the application of the doctrine and held that the doctrine must yield to practicality, logic, fairness, and substantial justice.
After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that compelling circumstances are extant in this case to justify the relaxation of the rules. Primarily, petitioner's life and liberty are at stake. The trial court has sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and this conviction attained finality on the basis of a mere technicality, not entirely through his fault or own doing. It is but proper, under the circumstances, that petitioner be given the opportunity to defend himself and pursue his appeal. To do otherwise would be tantamount to grave injustice. Both petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the RTC and his subsequent petition for certiorari in the CA also appear to stand on meritorious grounds. In addition, there is lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.
In setting aside the aforementioned technicalities, infirmities, and thereby giving due course to tardy appeals and defective petitions, it must be emphasized that the Court is mindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules. In this case, where technicalities were dispensed with, the Court's decisions were not meant to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by the law. On the contrary, in those rare instances, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of grave injustice as in this case. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause.
The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded as they insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Nonetheless, it is equally true that courts are not enslaved by technicalities. They have the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. Cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, as a rule, not serve as bases of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would he served.
