Nature of the Rules of Procedure

The rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.  Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within the power of the Court to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation (SPOUSES ESPEJO vs. ITO, G.R. No. 176511, August 4, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).

Procedural rules may be relaxed for persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. More so, when to allow the assailed decision to go unchecked would set a precedent that will sanction a violation of substantive law (PHIL. ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, et al. vs. JOSEPH JUDE CARATES, Et al. G.R. No. 181274, June 23, 2010, Third Division, Villarama, Jr. J.).

 Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice (MOBILIA PRODUCTS, INC. vs. DEMECILLO, G.R. No. 170669, February 4, 2009, 2nd Division, Quisumbing, J.).