Contrary to the claim of Lee, the RTC and the CA did not “ignore” the traditional “doctrine of liberality” but merely relied upon the guidelines as to when it is applicable and, after being so guided, chose not to apply it under the existing circumstances. It is true that rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure for persuasive and weights reasons. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, however, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[10] In this case, however, Lee did not bother to offer any convincing reason for this Court to relax the rules and just plainly sought its liberal interpretation. The Court, in Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc v. Alberto J. Raza,[11]stated:
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice.[12] Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.[13]
At any rate, the Court does not perceive any injustice in the denial of Lee’s motion. In fact, the RTC wrote that “the accused has the option to utilize the concerned NBI intended witness during the presentation of defense evidence.”[14] When his time comes to present evidence, Lee can utilize the NBI by availing of the coercive power of the court.
