"x x x.
Relaxation of procedural rules is allowed only when exceptional circumstances are obtaining in the case
We find in this case no justifiable reason to be liberal in the application of procedural rules.
On the contrary, there must be exactness rather than latitude in compliance with the rules considering the circumstances that show petitioner’s conscious disregard of procedure:
1. Petitioner did not attach to its petition filed on 29 October 2003 copies of all pleadings and documents, and other material portions of the record relevant and pertinent thereto in violation of Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46;
2. When the petitioner re-filed the petition on 5 March 2004, it did attach copies of the required documents but the same were neither duplicate originals nor certified true copies still in violation of Section 1, paragraph 2, Rule 65;
3. When the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated 11 March 2004,[42]afforded it an opportunity to comply with the rules within five (5) days from notice under pain of dismissal of the petition, it stated in its Compliance and Motion for Issuance of TRO or Status Quo Order dated 29 April 2004:
In compliance with the Resolution of March 11, 2004, we are submitting CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF Annexes “A” to “F” of our petition, which are enclosed herewith.[43]
However, only Annexes “B” to “D” were certified true copies of the documents;[44]
4. When the Court of Appeals, instead of dismissing the case, again extended its leniency by giving petitioner another chance and ordered anew the submission of certified true copies of Annexes “A,” “E,” “F,” and “F-1,”[45] petitioner once again impressed upon the court that it was submitting certified true copies of all the aforesaid annexes.[46] An examination of the submitted documents would show, however, that it merely re-submitted a machine copy of Annex “F-1.”[47] This time, the Court of Appeals did not notice the said omission; and
5. Most of the annexes attached to the instant petition are again mere machine copies of the original.
For these reasons, we resolve to strictly observe the Rules of Court guided by the following pronouncements of this Court:
It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.[48]
We see in petitioner’s actions a deliberate intent to avoid a determination of whether or not the Court of Appeals may still take cognizance of its petition.
x x x."
