This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[12] By way of exception, unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.[13] The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies.[14] | |||||
|
2006-11-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution gives this Court the power to "[p]romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts." It is within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules in particular cases in order to do justice.[15] In Kathy-O Enterprises v. NLRC,[16] the Court found the reason for the 3-day delay in the filing of the appeal with the NLRC justifiable, having been caused by "inadvertence amounting to excusable negligence." The Court observed that due to the presence of an upward stroke, the "5" in "25 January" appeared to be and could have been mistaken as an "8," thus leading KATHY-O's counsel to misread "25 January," the date of receipt stamped by his receiving clerk on the copy of the decision intended for said counsel, as "28 January." We held:When proper, no serious impediment bars the allowance of tardy appeals under the Rules of Court, in recognition of this Court's inherent power to suspend adjective rules. It is a different matter, however, when the period to appeal is provided by statute, as in labor cases. For obvious reasons, this Court cannot ordinarily suspend the statute's operation. x x x Nevertheless, if only to be able to dispense substantial justice, strict observance of the period to appeal may not be exacted. Thus, in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines v. Lariosa,[17] an appeal in a labor dispute was given due course despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days from notice of the decision, due to the fact that the Notice of Decision received by Lariosa's lawyer advised the parties that the appeal could be taken to the NLRC within ten (10) "working" days not calendar days from notice of the decision. For the same reason was the appeal in Chong Guan Trading v. NLRC[18] allowed. While in City Fair Corporation v. NLRC,[19] we ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it entertained an appeal filed one (1) day late considering that the "facts and circumstances of the case warrant liberality considering the amount and the issue involved." | |||||