Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERNANDO FORALAN v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 177313 2007-12-19	NIÑO MASAS Y MILAN v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
This notwithstanding, also under Section 8, a criminal case may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals motu proprio and with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his brief within the prescribed time. The phrase "with notice to the appellant" means that a notice must first be furnished the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.[3] No notice was given to petitioner to this effect. Besides, petitioner, in his motion for reconsideration, reiterated to the court that it cannot "order the dismissal of the appeal without prior notice to the appellant."[4]
	GR NO. 167492 2007-03-22	JAIME M. DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
For sure, in Foralan v. CA,[9] which is akin to this case, the Court allowed the admission of an appellant's brief even if filed out of time because the appellant therein was represented by a counsel de oficio, and ruled that it was error on the part of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal motu proprio instead of first giving to appellant a notice to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.
	GR NO. 136727 2005-05-06	PORFERIO B. JOPILLO v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners argue that it was error for the Court of Appeals to dismiss their appeal on a mere technicality since substantial justice requires that their case should be decided on the merits. They stress that pursuant to our ruling in Foralan v. Court of Appeals,[4] the Appellate Court should have first furnished them a notice to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed.