This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-02-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners next take the stand that even assuming the brief was filed late, the Court of Appeals still erred in dismissing their petition in light of the rulings of this Court allowing delayed appeals on equitable grounds.[22] Indeed, in certain special cases and for compelling causes, the Court has disregarded similar technical flaws so as to correct an obvious injustice made.[23] In this case, petitioners, however, failed to demonstrate any justifiable reasons or meritorious grounds for a liberal application of the rules. We must remind petitioners that the right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right - it is a statutory privilege and of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided by statute.[24] Thus, it may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the law.[25] | |||||
|
2004-03-03 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional.[23] Failure to interpose a timely appeal renders the assailed decision or order final and executory and deprives the appellate body of any jurisdiction to alter the final judgment.[24] The appellate court has power only to dismiss the appeal.[25] To rule that the appellate court accepted petitioner's reason for the late filing of the petition for review, absent any exceptional circumstances to warrant such delay, is patently against settled jurisprudential rules.[26] | |||||