Technicalities v Substantive Rights

Judicial action must be guided by the principle that a party litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. 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 or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. Courts must always be conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, the court may dismiss an appeal for failure to file appellant's brief on time. However, the dismissal is directory, not mandatory. It is not ministerial duty of the court to dismiss an appellant's appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. 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 attainment of justice and protection of substantive rights of the parties.