This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is entrenched in our jurisprudence that perfection of an appeal in a manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making judgment final and executory.[32] While dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds is frowned upon, Article 223 of the Labor Code which prescribes the appeal bond requirement, however, is a rule of jurisdiction and not of procedure.[33] Hence, there is a little leeway for condoning a liberal interpretation thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements are mere technicalities.[34] It is axiomatic that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.[35] The timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of party.[36] We cannot condone the practice of parties who, either by their own or their counsel's inadvertence, have allowed the judgment to become final and executory and, after the same had reached finality, seeks the shield of substantial justice to assail it. | |||||