Tible & Tible Company Inc. V. Royal Savings And Loan Act
prove to be a useless exercise. Thus, her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted. (Emphasis and underscoring ours.)
6. In the present case unfortunately, defendants did not even state in the subject motion what evidence they intend to present if the Honorable Court grants their motion. Defendants’ averment that they have strong and meritorious defenses is completely unsubstantiated making the subject motion more defective. Thus, subject motion must not be entertained, much less acted upon, by the Honorable Court. THE MOTION TO LIFT …show more content…
9. It must never be forgotten that, generally, the application of the rules must be upheld, and the suspension or even mere relaxation of its application, is the exception. In Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association (G.R. No. 155806, April 08, 2008), the Supreme Court previously explained: “The Court is not impervious to the frustration that litigants and lawyers alike would at times encounter in procedural bureaucracy but imperative justice requires correct observance of indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation. It has long been recognized that strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in ensuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed to provide for a system under which a suitor may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they
6. In the present case unfortunately, defendants did not even state in the subject motion what evidence they intend to present if the Honorable Court grants their motion. Defendants’ averment that they have strong and meritorious defenses is completely unsubstantiated making the subject motion more defective. Thus, subject motion must not be entertained, much less acted upon, by the Honorable Court. THE MOTION TO LIFT …show more content…
9. It must never be forgotten that, generally, the application of the rules must be upheld, and the suspension or even mere relaxation of its application, is the exception. In Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association (G.R. No. 155806, April 08, 2008), the Supreme Court previously explained: “The Court is not impervious to the frustration that litigants and lawyers alike would at times encounter in procedural bureaucracy but imperative justice requires correct observance of indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation. It has long been recognized that strict compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in ensuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed to provide for a system under which a suitor may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they