C. Construction of Procedural Rules

E. Construction of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, sec. 6)

> Rule 1, sec. 6: Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

"Rules of procedures are intended to promote, not to defeat, substantial justice and, therefore, they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. The exception is that, while the Rules are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied. As an exception to the exception, these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Also, in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it, but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice, and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” (CRISELDA F. JOSE v. CA, GR No. 128646, Mar 14, 2003)

Applicability of the Rules of Court

The Rules of Court apply in all courts, unless the Supreme Court provides otherwise.

General rule: The Rules of Court do not apply to:

• Election cases;
• Land registration cases;
• Cadastral cases;
• Naturalization cases;
• Insolvency proceedings; and
• Other cases not provided for in the Rules of Court.

Exception: In these cases, the Rules may apply by analogy or in a suppletory capacity whenever practicable and convenient.

Interpretation of the Provisions of the Rules of Court (1998 BAR)

GR: The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

XPNs: The following shall be strictly construed:

• Reglementary periods;
• Rule on forum shopping; and
• Service of summons must comply with Rule 14; substantial compliance may be recognized where the applicable rule and controlling decisions permit it.

The liberal construction of the rules may only be invoked in situations where there is an excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. (Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, 24 Oct. 2012)

Rule on Uniform Interpretation

The principle expressed in the maxim interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, or that every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence applies in interpreting the then-governing 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and Rule on Summary Procedure regarding the finality of judgments, and guides the harmonization of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2019, with the applicable Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. (Banares II v. Balising, G.R. No. 132624, 13 Mar. 2000; Herrera, 2007)

General Rule:

These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Rule 1, Sec. 6)

Exceptions:

• Service of summons is governed by Rule 14, subject to applicable decisions recognizing substantial compliance;
• Reglementary Periods;
• Forum Shopping;
• and Docket Fees (7107 Islands v. House Printers Corp., G.R. No. 193420, 2015)

The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. The Court cannot be expected to be liberal or indulgent when petitioner is without a valid explanation [for non-compliance]. (Rural Bank of Seven Lakes v. Dan, G.R. No. 174109, 2008)

IMPORTANT when invoking liberality:

The party invoking liberality should adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. (Navarro vs. Metrobank, G.R. No. 138031, 2004) Anyone seeking an exemption has the burden of proving that exceptionally meritorious instances exist which warrant departure from the Rule (RP vs. CA, G.R. No. 129846, 2000).

Q: X was the Chief of the Management Division of the PNP when he signed the "Noted by" portion of the Inspection Report Form without verifying the accuracy and truthfulness thereof, thereby facilitating the release of funds for the payment of supposedly brand-new helicopters which turned out to be secondhand units. After the Ombudsman’s investigation, an administrative complaint was filed against X for Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; a criminal information was also filed in connection with the transactions. In a joint resolution, the Ombudsman found X guilty which meted the penalty of dismissal from service. X went to the CA questioning the finding of administrative liability against him. The CA dismissed his petition for review and sustained his administrative liability. X received the copy of the CA decision on September 10, 2015. X sent his MR via private courier on September 28, 2015; the CA received it, and it was deemed filed, on October 2, 2015. The CA ruled that, for X’s filing, transmission through that private courier was not a recognized mode of filing a pleading and the date of the actual receipt by the court was deemed the date of filing. Under the amended Rule 13, secs. 3–4, filing through an accredited courier is permitted; an unaccredited private carrier is not an accredited courier. Hence, the CA denied his MR for failing to file within the reglementary period. Upon appeal, X raises that his the CA erred in denying his MR. Can the Court still give due course the MR even if it was filed out of time?

A: Yes. While compliance with procedural rules is necessary for an orderly administration of justice, the rules "shall be liberally construed to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” In this case, X belatedly filed his MR before the CA because he only had 15 days from the date of receipt of the CA decision to file an MR. X only had until September 25, 2015 but he sent his MR via private courier on September 28, 2015; it was deemed filed when the CA received it on October 2, 2015. However, although X's MR of the CA decision therein was filed out of time, the Court still gave due course to the petition in view of the substantial merits.

This Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

Considering the foregoing, the instances for relaxation of the rules are present in this case:

• X has been able to give sufficient explanation as to why timeliness requirements have not been complied with — his previous counsel miscalculated the period of filing and misunderstood the rules.
• The injurious effect of the counsel's blunder immediately caused X's dismissal from service.
• The belated filing was not motivated by any malicious intent

(Lukban v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 238563, February 12, 2020.)