Monday, January 17, 2022

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

Procedural rules should be interpreted liberally to attain substantial justice. Technicalities of procedure should be avoided. This guideline is found in Rule 1, Section 6 of the ROC which states:

"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 rule of liberal construction is not an excuse for disregarding procedural rules without any valid reason. For example, the Rules require a defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint within 30 days from receipt of summons. The defendant cannot just file an Answer on the 31st day and ask the court to admit it on the ground of liberal construction, without any valid reason.

The Supreme Court emphasizes 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 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)

Case: 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."

In this case, the Supreme Court decided to apply the rule on liberal construction.

No comments:

Post a Comment

https://civ-pro.blogspot.com/2022/01/simplified-flowchart-of-ordinary-civil.html

VIdeo on Interpleader