G.R. No.

189151, January 25, 2012

SPOUSES DAVID BERGONIA et al., v. COURT OF APPEALS et al.

The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the interest of
substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to
suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive
rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the
most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure prescribed.

In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista, G.R. NO. 164668, February 14,
2005, this Court clarified that procedural rules are required to be followed except
only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed:

We agree with the petitioner's contention that the rules of

procedure may be relaxed for the most persuasive reasons. But as this
Court held in Galang v. Court of Appeals:

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed

simply because their non-observance may have resulted in
prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only for the most
persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed. (Underscoring supplied)

In an avuncular case, we emphasized that:

Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in
some instances, allows a relaxation 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. While 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.

The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must
comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
More so, as in this case, where petitioner not only neglected to file its brief within the
stipulated time but also failed to seek an extension of time for a cogent ground before
the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

Santos v. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 92862. July 4, 1991.

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 insuring
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 suitors may be heard in the
correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a
judge whose authority they acknowledge. The other alternative is the settlement of their
conflict through the barrel of a gun.

Le Soleil Int'l. Logistics Co., Inc,. et al. v. Sanchez, et al., G.R. No. 199384, Sep. 09, 2015

Time and again, we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the
convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to,
and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.

Spouses Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 113890. February 22, 1995

Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a
statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the
rules. In People v. Marong, (No. L-56858, December 27, 1982, 119 SCRA 430) we held
that deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is
not difficult to appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition
of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules
need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left
to the whims and caprices of appellants. In the case at bar, counsel for petitioners had
all the opportunity to comply with the above rules. He remained obstinate in his non-
observance even when he sought reconsideration of the ruling of the respondent court
dismissing his clients’ appeal. Such obstinacy is incongruous with his late plea for
liberality in construing the rules on appeal.