Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 04202018

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    The Court of Appeals granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its previous resolution dismissing their petition for review. The Court found that the petitioners adequately explained the timeliness of the petition and paid the correct docket fees. As such, in the interest of justice, the Court relaxed the procedural rules and reinstated the petition for review. It ordered the respondents to file a comment to the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners to file a reply within 5 days thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 04202018

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    44 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its previous resolution dismissing their petition for review. The Court found that the petitioners adequately explained the timeliness of the petition and paid the correct docket fees. As such, in the interest of justice, the Court relaxed the procedural rules and reinstated the petition for review. It ordered the respondents to file a comment to the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners to file a reply within 5 days thereafter.

    Original Title

    _UPLOADS_PDF_198_SP__08225-MIN_04202018

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its previous resolution dismissing their petition for review. The Court found that the petitioners adequately explained the timeliness of the petition and paid the correct docket fees. As such, in the interest of justice, the Court relaxed the procedural rules and reinstated the petition for review. It ordered the respondents to file a comment to the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners to file a reply within 5 days thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Uploads PDF 198 SP 08225-Min 04202018

    Uploaded by

    viktor samuel fontanilla
    The Court of Appeals granted the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of its previous resolution dismissing their petition for review. The Court found that the petitioners adequately explained the timeliness of the petition and paid the correct docket fees. As such, in the interest of justice, the Court relaxed the procedural rules and reinstated the petition for review. It ordered the respondents to file a comment to the petition within 10 days and allowed the petitioners to file a reply within 5 days thereafter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    Court of Appeals
    Cagayan de Oro City

    SPECIAL FORMER SPECIAL TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION

    SPOUSES KALBI AND IMELDA DALUS, CA-G.R. SP NO. 08225-MIN


    Petitioners,
    Members:

    *
    BORJA, J., CH.,
    LLOREN &
    -versus- ATAL-PAÑO, JJ.

    Promulgated:
    SPOUSES KADRA AND ALMA MASIHUL
    AND LUCITA YAMONGAN,
    Respondents. APRIL 20, 2018

    RESOLUTION

    ATAL-PAÑO, J.:

    After perusal of petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration 1 sans


    comment,2 the Court finds that there was adequate rectification and
    explanation as to the material dates showing the timeliness of the
    Petition for Review.3 Regarding the failure to pay the correct amount of
    docket fees, petitioners, in order to rectify the same, attached a postal
    money order in the amount of P550.00.4

    In view thereof, the Court will hew to a liberal construction of the


    rules if only to secure the greater interest of justice.

    *
    Vice J. Acosta, per Raffle dated October 24, 2017.
    1
    Rollo, pp. 85-90.
    2
    Per CMIS verification dated January 10, 2018; Rollo, attached print-out.
    3
    Rollo, pp. 3-23.
    4
    Official Receipt; Rollo, p. 1.
    CA-G.R. SP NO. 08225-MIN Page 2 of 2
    Resolution

    It is settled that "subsequent and substantial compliance may call for


    the relaxation of the rules of procedure. "5 Indeed, in Santos vs. Litton
    Mills Incorporated,6 the Supreme Court relaxed the rigid application of
    the rules to offer full opportunity for the parties to ventilate their causes
    and defenses in order to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice.

    Accordingly, the Court GRANTS petitioners' Motion for


    Reconsideration. The August 10, 2017 Resolution is reconsidered and,
    consequently, the instant petition is hereby REINSTATED.

    The excess payment of P20.007 by way of docket fees is ordered


    refunded to the petitioners.

    Respondents are hereby directed to file their comment to the


    petition (not a motion to dismiss) within ten (10) days from receipt of
    notice. Petitioners may file a reply within five (5) days from receipt of
    respondents' comment.

    SO ORDERED.

    (Original Signed)
    PERPETUA T. ATAL-PAÑO
    Associate Justice

    WE CONCUR:

    (ORIGINAL SIGNED)
    (Original Signed)
    ROMULO V. BORJA EDGARDO T. LLOREN
    Associate Justice Associate Justice

    5
    Republic of the Philippines, v. Spouses Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016, citing Security
    Bank Corporation v. Indiana Aerospace University, 500 Phil. 51, 60 (2005).
    6
    G.R. No. 170646, June 22, 2011.
    7
    Rollo, p. 1.

    You might also like