SHOULD justice be murdered at the altar of “procedural technicalities” (if not “obstructions dressed up as protocol”)?
Procedural technicalities must yield to the broader interest of justice.
In several precedents, the High Court has relaxed the observance of procedural rules to advance substantial justice. (Vide: Dr. Malixi vs. Dr. Baltazar, G.R. No. 208224, November 22, 2017; City of Dagupan vs. Maramba, 738 Phil. 71 [2014]; Balaganon vs. CA, 166 Phil. 699 [1977])
After all, the court’s primary duty is to render or dispense justice.
Admittedly, procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded since they insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Nonetheless, the rules of procedure should be viewed as “mere tools” designed to “facilitate the attainment of justice.” Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate—rather than promote substantial justice—must always be avoided.
Cases should be determined on the merits—after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits (which is a primordial end), rather than on a technicality or some procedural imperfections that may result in injustice. (Vide: Spouses Cordero vs. Octaviano, G.R. No. 241385, July 07, 2020)
In Alonzo vs. IAC (G.R. No. 72873, May 28, 1987), the Supreme Court said: “Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so…”
The courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules—shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, the courts have always been conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. (Grand Placement and General Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 142358, January 31, 2006)
Party-litigants and their lawyers must always be reminded that “lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.” Notably, “a litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other.” It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then asks that “justice be done upon the merits.” (Vide: Alonso vs. Villamor, G.R. No. L-2352, July 26, 1910)
