JURISPRUDENCE ON LIBERALITY OF RULES

 It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the

application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled
principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice.

 Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza,1 explained that:

To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid
reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show
reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the
Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of
substantial justice. x x x The desired leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and
compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. x x x

 Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in

accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented
and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except
only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be
an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by
the rules.2

Given the foregoing circumstances, Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr., in his Dissenting
Opinion, still finds "exceptional circumstances" that warrant this Court to suspend
its rules and accord liberality to petitioner, citing Section 11, Rule 11 of the Rules of
Court, which reads:

Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may extend
the time to plead provided in these Rules.

The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other
pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.

 In the case of Spouses Diaz v. Diaz,3 it was held that Suits should as much as possible
be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. In this regard, the Supreme
Court has often admonished courts to be liberal in setting aside orders of default as
default judgments are frowned upon and not looked upon with favor for they may
amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant and the possibility
of such serious consequences necessitates a careful examination of the grounds
upon which the defendant asks that it be set aside.

 In Genite v. Court of Appeals,4 it was stressed that:

The Rules of Court were conceived and promulgated to set forth
guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the
hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or
robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely
why courts, in rendering justice have always been, as they in fact ought
to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance,
technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other
way around. As applied to [the] instant case, in the language of Justice

1
G.R. No. 181688, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 788.
2
Sebastian v. Hon. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 605 (2003).
3
G.R. No. 135885, April 28, 2000.
4
296 SCRA 38 (1998).
 Makalintal, technicalities "should give way to the realities of the
situation."

 In Marohomsalic v. Cole,5 the Court stated:

While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is
well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of
cases. The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was
never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules
with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the
rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes
and circumstances. While litigation is not a game of technicalities, every
case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to
ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

5
G.R. No. 169918, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 788.