Aguam vs CA : 137672 : May 31, 2000

Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the
cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice.[21] "A litigation is
not a game of technicalities."[22] "Law suits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its
great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts."[23] Litigations
must be decided on their merits and not on technicality.[24] Every party litigant must be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free
from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.[25] Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on
technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of
appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial
justice.[26] It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a
technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of
justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the
parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more
delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vs - DOMINGO R. DANDO, G.R. No. 177456 September
4, 2009, citing Sanchez v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court restated the reasons that may
provide justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, such
as: (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 fact that the other party will
not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.[33]

HEIRS OF VICTORIANA VILLAGRACIA VS. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION et.al.

[G.R. No. 136972, March 28, 2008]

However, in the instant case, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be better
served if it is determined on the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for
ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural
imperfections.[15] It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a primordial
end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice.[16] While it is desirable that
the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be too strict with procedural
lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. The rules are intended
to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation because of the higher objective they
seek, which is the attainmentof justice and the protection of substantive rights of the
parties.[17] In Republic v. Imperial,[18] the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., stressed that the filing of the appellant's brief in appeals is not a jurisdictional
requirement. But an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on grounds enumerated under Rule
50 of the Rules of Court. The Court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except
a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of
justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that will merit suspension of
the rules is discretionary upon the court.[19]