The Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure. This is the basis of its authority in promugating the Rules of Court and other procedural rules.
The 1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 5(5) provides that the Supreme Court has the power to:
"Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."
This provisions lays down limitations for the exercise of this rule-making power:
1) The procedure shall be simplified and inexpensive.
2) The goal the speedy disposition of cases.
3) The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade. This means, for example, that rules of procedure for all RTCs should appply all throughout the country; the same is true for all first level-courts or MTCs.
4) The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Only laws passed by the lawmaking body can affect substantive rights. Procedural rules are intended to govern pleading, practice and procedure in order to protect (not modify) substantive rights.
As part of its rule-making power, the Supreme Court is authorized to amend or suspend its own rules to serve the interest of justice. So it was held in Julie S. Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation, GR No. 197582, June 29, 2015 where the Supreme Court stated:
xxx the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. After all, procedural rules were 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, as specifically mandated under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court:
xxx
Substantial justice demands that we suspend our Rules in this case. 'It is always within the power of the court to suspend its own [R]ules or except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require. x x x Indeed, when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice.' Suspending the Rules is justified 'where there exist strong compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a miscarriage thereof.' After all, the Court's 'primordial and most important duty is to render justice x x x.'
No comments:
Post a Comment