G.R. No. 146224. January 26, 2007. VIRGINIA REAL, Petitioner, vs. SISENANDO H. BELO, Respondent
G.R. No. 146224. January 26, 2007. VIRGINIA REAL, Petitioner, vs. SISENANDO H. BELO, Respondent
G.R. No. 146224. January 26, 2007. VIRGINIA REAL, Petitioner, vs. SISENANDO H. BELO, Respondent
112
strict application of the rule in this case is not called for. This
Court has ruled against the dismissal of appeals based solely on
technicalities in several cases, especially when the appellant had
substantially complied with the formal requirements. There is
ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial
compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of
procedure. When the CA dismisses a petition outright and the
petitioner files a motion for the reconsideration of such dismissal,
appending thereto the requisite pleadings, documents or
order/resolution, this would constitute substantial compliance
with the Revised Rules of Court.
113
114
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
_______________
115
_______________
2 Id., at p. 73.
3 Docketed as Civil Case No. 152882-CV in the MeTC Decision, id.,
at p. 36.
4 Id., at p. 28.
116
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Real vs. Belo
5 Id., at p. 33.
6 Id., at p. 36.
7 Id., at p. 42.
117
_______________
8 Id., at p. 21.
9 Id., at p. 27.
10 Id., at p. 6.
11 Id., at pp. 44-45.
12 Id.
118
_______________
13 Id., at p. 46.
14 Id., at pp. 50 and 56.
15 Supra note 2.
16 Rollo, pp. 14-15.
119
_______________
17 Id., at p. 83.
18 Id., at p. 89.
19 Id., at p. 96.
20 Id., at p. 94.
121
_______________
21 Mendoza v. David, G.R. No. 147575, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA
172, 179; Vidal v. Escueta, 463 Phil. 315, 330; 417 SCRA 617, 627
(2003).
22 Mendoza v. David, supra, citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 456
Phil. 520, 534; 409 SCRA 267, 276 (2003); Posadas-Moya & Associates
Construction Co., Inc. v. Greenfield Development Corporation, 451
Phil. 647, 661; 403 SCRA 530, 541 (2003); Jaro v. Court of Appeals,
427 Phil. 532, 547; 377 SCRA 282, 297 (2002); Piglas-
122
_______________
_______________
124
_______________
29 Golangco v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 771, 778; 283 SCRA 493,
501 (1997); Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 91385, January 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 15, 29.
30 Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Sarangaya III, G.R. No.
147746, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 191, 200; Lea Mer Industries,
Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 161745, September 30,
2005, 471 SCRA 698, 707-708.
31 Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. v. Sarangaya III, supra;
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-42926, September 13, 1985,
138 SCRA 553, 557.
125
_______________
32 Domingo v. Robles, G.R. No. 153743, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA
812, 818; Ongpauco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134039, December
21, 2004, 447 SCRA 395, 400.
33 Mayor v. Belen, G.R. No. 151035, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 561,
567; Marubeni Corporation v. Lirag, 415 Phil. 29, 38; 362 SCRA 620,
629 (2001).
126
_______________
127
_______________
38 Tangalin v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 358, 364; 371 SCRA 49,
54-55 (2001); Rural Bank of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan v. Court of
Appeals, 373 Phil. 27, 45; 314 SCRA 255, 272 (1999).
39 Tangalin v. Court of Appeals, supra; Santos v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 100963, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 42, 46.
128
——o0o——