Lawyerly

GR No. 199384

2015-09-09

LE SOLEIL INT'L. LOGISTICS CO. v. VICENTE SANCHEZ

PEREZ, J.

Under the foregoing rules, petition for certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.[8] The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.[9] Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[10] As a corollary, 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. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.[11]

GR No. 199617

2015-09-02

REY TORRECAMPO v. NLRC

PEREZ, J.

Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[6] certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.[7] The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.[8] Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[9] As a corollary, 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. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.[10]

GR No. 210861

2015-07-29

CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE v. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Eventually, in Labao v. Flores,[35] the Court laid down the following recognized exceptions to the strict observance of the 60-day reglementary period: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.[36]

GR No. 205575

2015-07-22

VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be filed "not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution" sought to be assailed. The provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with.[56]

GR No. 199070

2014-04-07

PEOPLE v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA

CARPIO, J.

The 60-day period may be extended under any of the circumstances provided in the earlier case of Labao v. Flores.[36] The recognized exceptions are: 1. most persuasive and weighty reasons;

GR No. 191215

2014-02-03

THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES v. CA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Then in Labao v. Flores,[29] we laid down some of the exceptions to the strict application of the 60-day period rule, thus:[T]here are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.

GR No. 188514

2013-08-28

MARIA LOURDES D. CASTELLS v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

It is well-settled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, the Court has recognized exceptions to the strict application of such rules, but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.[24] These exceptions, as enumerated in the case of Labao v. Flores,[25] are as follows:x x x (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. x x x.[26] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 192908

2012-08-22

REPUBLIC v. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES

REYES, J.

Labao v. Flores[27] subsequently laid down some of the exceptions to the strict application of the rule, viz: Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.

GR No. 174431

2012-08-06

HEIRS OF JOLLY R. BUGARIN v. REPUBLIC

MENDOZA, J.

The immutability of judgment that has long become final and executory is the core, the very essence of an effective and efficient administration of justice. Thus, in Labao v. Flores,[44] this Court reiterated the importance of the doctrine: Needless to stress, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as 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. After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.

GR No. 176628

2012-03-19

PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY v. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT

BRION, J.

The Rules of Court specifically provides for deadlines in actions before the court to ensure an orderly disposition of cases. PTA cannot escape these legal technicalities by simply invoking the negligence of its counsel. This practice, if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules on periods since every party would merely lay the blame on its counsel to avoid any liability. The rule is that "a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique[,]and unless such acts involve gross negligence that the claiming party can prove, the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the latter's acts."[6]

	GR No. 199384 2015-09-09	LE SOLEIL INT'L. LOGISTICS CO. v. VICENTE SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
Under the foregoing rules, petition for certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.[8] The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.[9] Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[10] As a corollary, 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. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.[11]
	GR No. 199617 2015-09-02	REY TORRECAMPO v. NLRC PEREZ, J.
Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[6] certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed.[7] The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.[8] Rules of procedure must be faithfully complied with and should not be discarded with the mere expediency of claiming substantial merit.[9] As a corollary, 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. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.[10]
	GR No. 210861 2015-07-29	CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE v. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Eventually, in Labao v. Flores,[35] the Court laid down the following recognized exceptions to the strict observance of the 60-day reglementary period: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.[36]
	GR No. 205575 2015-07-22	VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be filed "not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution" sought to be assailed. The provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with.[56]
	GR No. 199070 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA CARPIO, J.
The 60-day period may be extended under any of the circumstances provided in the earlier case of Labao v. Flores.[36] The recognized exceptions are: 1. most persuasive and weighty reasons;
	GR No. 191215 2014-02-03	THENAMARIS PHILIPPINES v. CA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Then in Labao v. Flores,[29] we laid down some of the exceptions to the strict application of the 60-day period rule, thus:[T]here are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
	GR No. 188514 2013-08-28	MARIA LOURDES D. CASTELLS v. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-settled that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time, however, the Court has recognized exceptions to the strict application of such rules, but only for the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.[24] These exceptions, as enumerated in the case of Labao v. Flores,[25] are as follows:x x x (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. x x x.[26] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 192908 2012-08-22	REPUBLIC v. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL COLLEGES REYES, J.
Labao v. Flores[27] subsequently laid down some of the exceptions to the strict application of the rule, viz: Under Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case.
	GR No. 174431 2012-08-06	HEIRS OF JOLLY R. BUGARIN v. REPUBLIC MENDOZA, J.
The immutability of judgment that has long become final and executory is the core, the very essence of an effective and efficient administration of justice. Thus, in Labao v. Flores,[44] this Court reiterated the importance of the doctrine: Needless to stress, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory; execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as 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. After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation, and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.
	GR No. 176628 2012-03-19	PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY v. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT BRION, J.
The Rules of Court specifically provides for deadlines in actions before the court to ensure an orderly disposition of cases. PTA cannot escape these legal technicalities by simply invoking the negligence of its counsel. This practice, if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules on periods since every party would merely lay the blame on its counsel to avoid any liability. The rule is that "a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique[,]and unless such acts involve gross negligence that the claiming party can prove, the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the latter's acts."[6]

FRANCISCO A. LABAO v. LOLITO N. FLORES