THE SUPREME COURT NOW HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES CONCERNING PLEADING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN ALL COURTS.

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, which empowered Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the rules of the Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, the 1987 Constitution removed this power from Congress. (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) vs. HEIRS OF FERNANDO F. CABALLERO, G.R. Nos. 158090, October 4, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: SUSPENSION AND RELAXATION OF THE RULES OF COURT:

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.).

Be that as it may, the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. x x x The rules may be relaxed only in "exceptionally meritorious cases" (MAPAGAY vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).

JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: Findings of quasi-judicial agencies

it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce ⁽Sanchez v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 127545, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 471, 489, citing Cuerdo v. Commission on Audit, No. L-84592, October 27, 1988, 166 SCRA 657, 661 further citing Tagum Doctors Enterprises v. Apsay, No. L-81188, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 154, 155-156.)  Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, ⁽Laysa v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 128134, October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 520, 526) and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion ⁽Sanchez v. Commission on Audit, supra note 14.) x x x  There being no grave abuse of discretion in the findings and conclusions of the COA in this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from these long-settled rules (Candelario L. Versoza vs. Guillermo s. Carague, G.R. No. 157838, February 7, 2012, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

A PARTY CANNOT INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO SECURE AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AGAINST HIS OPPONENT AND AFTER OBTAINING OR FAILING TO OBTAIN SUCH RELIEF, REPUDIATE OR QUESTION THAT SAME JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if adverse. If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court (Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation vs. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated, G.R. No. 183789, August 24, 2011, PEREZ, J.). 

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT

The Rules of Court shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient (Section 4, Rule 1of the Rules of Court). x x x The rules can nonetheless be applied in a "suppletory character." Suppletory is defined as "supplying deficiencies" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, p. 1184). It means that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) vs. DINNAH VILLAVIZA ET. AL., G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010, MENDOZA, J.).