Consti. gives SC power to AMEND, SUSPEND procedural rules
[2] When the purpose of justice requires it.
What constitutes a good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts. (CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR No. 159593, 10/12/2006). Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR 167471, 02/05/2007).
[3] To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules (CuUnjieng v. CA, 479 SCRA 594)
[4] Where substantial and important issues await resolution (Pagbilao, supra).
[5] When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved (Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. vs. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416). [6] The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago, GR 170354, 07/30/2006).
[7] 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 vs. Carates, GR Ni, 181274, 07/23/2010).
[8] The bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. The rules may be relaxed only in exceptionally meritorious cases (Mapagay vs. people, GR No. 178984, 08/19/2009).