This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, an appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege, and as such, may only be availed in the manner provided by the law and the rules. Thus, a party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules; otherwise, the privilege is lost.[31] Therefore, an appeal must be perfected within the reglementary period provided by law; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory. However, as in all cases, there are exceptions to the strict application of the rules in perfecting an appeal,[32] such as when said appeal is meritorious.[33] Verily, strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give way to the factual and legal reality that is evident from the records of the case. After all, the primary objective of the laws is to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.[34] | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Semblante v. Court of Appeals[166] involved a masiador[167] and a sentenciador.[168] This court ruled that "petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of respondents"[169] and that the masiador and sentenciador "relied mainly on their 'expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling.'"[170] Hence, no employer-employee relationship existed. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Lopez v. Quezon City Sports Club Inc.,[72] the posting of the amount of P4,000,000.00 simultaneously with the filing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, all within the reglementary period, altogether constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista,[73] this Court has relaxed the appeal bond requirement when it was clear from the records that petitioners never intended to evade the posting of an appeal bond. In Semblante v. Court of Appeals,[74] the Court stated that the rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were never responsible. It was found that respondents, not being petitioners' employees, could never have been dismissed legally or illegally. In the recent case of Garcia v. KJ Commercial,[75] respondent showed willingness to post a partial bond when it posted a P50,000.00 cash bond upon filing of a motion to reduce bond. In addition, when respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied, it posted the full surety bond. | |||||