The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the

dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise,
courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That
is precisely why courts, in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact ought to
be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat
to substantive rights, and not the other way around. As applied to the instant case, in the
language of then Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, technicalities "should give way to
the realities of the situation." (Emphasis supplied.)

JORGE L. TIANGCO, THE HEIRS OF ENRIQUE L. TIANGCO, GLORIA T.

BATUNGBACAL, NARCISO L. TIANGCO and SILVINO L. TIANGCO,
Petitioners,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, 37G.R. No. 153998 October 6, 2010

Citing: Natonton v. Magaway G.R. No. 147011, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 199.

When a rigid application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their operation.41 JORGE L. TIANGCO,
THE HEIRS OF ENRIQUE L. TIANGCO, GLORIA T. BATUNGBACAL,
NARCISO L. TIANGCO and SILVINO L. TIANGCO, Petitioners,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 153998 October 6, 2010

*********************************************************************

"Once again, we must stress that the technical rules of procedure should be used to
promote, not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is
a laudable aim, the just resolution of cases on their merits, however, cannot be sacrificed
merely in order to achieve that objective. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to
thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid application
may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by, the
need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal course."1 G.R. No. 170646
June 22, 2011

MA. LIGAYA B. SANTOS, Petitioner,

vs.
LITTON MILLS INCORPORATED and/or ATTY. RODOLFO MARIÑO,

Citing: Fiel v. Kris Security Systems, Inc., 448 Phil.657, 662 (2003)

Adventitious resort to technicality resulting in the dismissal of cases is disfavored

because litigations must as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on
technicalities. G.R. No. 165769 December 12, 2011

EDITO PAGADORA, Petitioner,

vs.
JULIETA S. ILAO

*********************************************

Substantial justice means justice administered according to rules of substantive law in a

fair manner. Here, the litigant’s substantive rights are protected from the procedural errors
of litigation. Substantial justice ensures a fair trial on merits.

USLEGAL.COM
justice of a sufficient degree esp. to satisfy a standard of fairness
;also
: justice administered according to the substance and not necessarily the form of the law

dictionary.findlaw.com

***********************************************************************

The truth-seeking function of the judicial system is best served by giving an opportunity
to all parties to fully present their case, subject to procedural and evidentiary rules.
Absent any blatant neglect or willful delay, both parties should be afforded equal latitude
in presenting the evidence and the testimonies of their witnesses in favor of their
respective positions, as well as in testing the credibility and the veracity of the opposing
party’s claims through cross-examination. G.R. No. 149193 April 4, 2011

RICARDO B. BANGAYAN, Petitioner,

vs.
RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION AND PHILIP SARIA