Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

Trimica, Inc. v. Polaris Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. L-29887, 28 October 1974, 60 SCRA

Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and ensure cases are prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. While courts may relax procedural rules in some cases under justifiable circumstances, this was not intended to allow litigants to violate rules with impunity. In this case, the respondent failed to provide a persuasive reason for exempting itself from strictly following the procedural rules.

Uploaded by

sharppy38
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views1 page

Trimica, Inc. v. Polaris Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. L-29887, 28 October 1974, 60 SCRA

Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and ensure cases are prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. While courts may relax procedural rules in some cases under justifiable circumstances, this was not intended to allow litigants to violate rules with impunity. In this case, the respondent failed to provide a persuasive reason for exempting itself from strictly following the procedural rules.

Uploaded by

sharppy38
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities have their own valid raison

d etre in the orderly administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice. ...Trimica, Inc. v. Polaris Marketing Corporation, G.R. o. !-"#$$%, "$ &ctober '#%(, )* +,R."'. Procedural rules are /tools0 designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. ,ourts and litigants ali1e are thus /enjoined0 to abide strictly by the rules. -nd while the ,ourt, in some instances, allows a rela2ation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. 3hile it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. - Garbo v. Court of Appeals !i1e all rules, procedural rules should be followed e2cept only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be rela2ed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. "' 4n this case, respondent failed to show any persuasive reason why it should be e2empted from strictly abiding by the rules. 5 Social Securit S stem v. C!aves, G.R. o. '6'"6#, '. &ctober "**(, ((* +,R- ")#. Spouses Valentin Ortiz and Camilla Milan Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, et al., 299 SCRA 708, 7 ! 7 2 " 998#,$ "Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the

policy of liberal construction."

'

You might also like