Lawyerly

GR No. 199354

2013-06-26

BRION, J.

We similarly ruled in Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals[19] where we said that the appellant "knew or ought to have known that, pursuant to the above rule, his motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days could be granted for only fifteen (15) days. There simply was no basis for assuming that the requested 30-day extension would be granted." As we heretofore stressed, an extension of time to appeal is generally allowed only for fifteen (15) days. Go cannot simply demand for a longer period, without citing the reason therefor, for the court's consideration and application of discretion.

GR No. 174149

2010-09-08

J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG

PEREZ, J.

The record shows that, having been granted the 15-day extension sought in its first motion, petitioner filed a second motion for extension praying for an additional 10 days from 17 April 2006 within which to file its petition for review, on the ground that pressures of work and the demands posed by equally important cases prevented its counsel from finalizing the same. As correctly ruled by the CA, however, heavy workload cannot be considered as a valid justification to sidestep the reglementary period[45] since to do so would only serve to encourage needless delays and interminable litigations. Indeed, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business.[46] Corollary to the principle that the allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,[47] moreover, lawyers cannot expect that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted[48] as a matter of course.

GR Nos. 167583-84

2010-06-16

ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION

PERALTA, J.

Withal, this Court must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.[33] Indeed, in no uncertain terms, this Court has held that the said Rules may be relaxed only in ''exceptionally meritorious cases."[34] Petitioners have failed to show that this case is one of the exceptions.

GR NO. 151973

2009-07-23

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO

PERALTA, J.

The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice to spare itself from the consequences of belatedly filing an appeal. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal.[65] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[66] After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits.[67]

GR No. 180146

2008-12-18

PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA v. POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As a general rule, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[22] The Court, however, reiterates its previous pronouncements herein that the Summary Dismissal Proceedings were conducted without notice to Montoya and in violation of his right to due process. The violation of Montoya's fundamental constitutional right deprived the NCR Regional Director of jurisdiction over Montoya's administrative case; and the decision rendered by the NCR Regional Director therein was void. A void judgment does not become final and executory and may be challenged at any time.

GR No. 155758

2008-10-31

HEIRS OF JOSE ESPLANA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court.[6] Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of the rule on the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business.[7]

GR NO. 168988

2007-06-19

FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Absent exceptional circumstances, we adhere to the rule that certain procedural precepts must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail oneself of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.[31]

GR No. 154460

2005-11-22

LAURO C. DEGAMO v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORP.

QUISUMBING, J.

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty days from notice of the judgment. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen days. We have consistently held that the allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and such discretion vested in the courts must be exercised wisely and prudently, and never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[11]

GR No. 161776

2004-10-22

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. DAVID E. ESERJOSE AND ZENAIDA ESERJOSE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is a procedural remedy of statutory origin and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[20] Moreover, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is essential; noncompliance with this legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[21] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the case.[22]

GR No. 150792

2004-03-03

REMEDIOS L. PETILLA v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Perfecting an appeal within the prescribed period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional as held in Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals,[18] thus: xxx There are certain procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.

GR No. 140316

2002-08-01

JEFFREY DAYRIT v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

QUISUMBING, J.

right must comply with the pertinent statute or rules.[21] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to seasonably perfect the appeal to a higher court renders the judgment of the lower court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has thereafter the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision in the case.[22] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53374, are AFFIRMED.

	GR No. 199354 2013-06-26	WILSON T. GO v. BPI FINANCE CORPORATION BRION, J.
We similarly ruled in Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals[19] where we said that the appellant "knew or ought to have known that, pursuant to the above rule, his motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days could be granted for only fifteen (15) days. There simply was no basis for assuming that the requested 30-day extension would be granted." As we heretofore stressed, an extension of time to appeal is generally allowed only for fifteen (15) days. Go cannot simply demand for a longer period, without citing the reason therefor, for the court's consideration and application of discretion.
	GR No. 174149 2010-09-08	J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG PEREZ, J.
The record shows that, having been granted the 15-day extension sought in its first motion, petitioner filed a second motion for extension praying for an additional 10 days from 17 April 2006 within which to file its petition for review, on the ground that pressures of work and the demands posed by equally important cases prevented its counsel from finalizing the same. As correctly ruled by the CA, however, heavy workload cannot be considered as a valid justification to sidestep the reglementary period[45] since to do so would only serve to encourage needless delays and interminable litigations. Indeed, rules prescribing the time for doing specific acts or for taking certain proceedings are considered absolutely indispensable to prevent needless delays and to orderly and promptly discharge judicial business.[46] Corollary to the principle that the allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,[47] moreover, lawyers cannot expect that their motions for extension or postponement will be granted[48] as a matter of course.
	GR Nos. 167583-84 2010-06-16	ARTISTICA CERAMICA v. CIUDAD DEL CARMEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
Withal, this Court must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.[33] Indeed, in no uncertain terms, this Court has held that the said Rules may be relaxed only in ''exceptionally meritorious cases."[34] Petitioners have failed to show that this case is one of the exceptions.
	GR NO. 151973 2009-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO PERALTA, J.
The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice to spare itself from the consequences of belatedly filing an appeal. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal.[65] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[66] After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits.[67]
	GR No. 180146 2008-12-18	PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA v. POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[22] The Court, however, reiterates its previous pronouncements herein that the Summary Dismissal Proceedings were conducted without notice to Montoya and in violation of his right to due process. The violation of Montoya's fundamental constitutional right deprived the NCR Regional Director of jurisdiction over Montoya's administrative case; and the decision rendered by the NCR Regional Director therein was void. A void judgment does not become final and executory and may be challenged at any time.
	GR No. 155758 2008-10-31	HEIRS OF JOSE ESPLANA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court.[6] Lawyers are expected to be knowledgeable of the rule on the grant of such motion. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business.[7]
	GR NO. 168988 2007-06-19	FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Absent exceptional circumstances, we adhere to the rule that certain procedural precepts must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail oneself of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.[31]
	GR No. 154460 2005-11-22	LAURO C. DEGAMO v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORP. QUISUMBING, J.
Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a petition for certiorari shall be filed not later than sixty days from notice of the judgment. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen days. We have consistently held that the allowance or denial of a motion for extension of time is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and such discretion vested in the courts must be exercised wisely and prudently, and never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.[11]
	GR No. 161776 2004-10-22	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. DAVID E. ESERJOSE AND ZENAIDA ESERJOSE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is a procedural remedy of statutory origin and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[20] Moreover, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is essential; noncompliance with this legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[21] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the case.[22]
	GR No. 150792 2004-03-03	REMEDIOS L. PETILLA v. CA CARPIO, J.
Perfecting an appeal within the prescribed period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional as held in Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals,[18] thus: xxx There are certain procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those setting the periods for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review, for it is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case.
	GR No. 140316 2002-08-01	JEFFREY DAYRIT v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS QUISUMBING, J.
right must comply with the pertinent statute or rules.[21] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to seasonably perfect the appeal to a higher court renders the judgment of the lower court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has thereafter the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision in the case.[22] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53374, are AFFIRMED.

VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD v. CA