This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The plea for liberality is unworthy of any sympathy from the Court. We have always looked at appeal as not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. As the parties invoking the privilege, the petitioners should have faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. Their failure to do so forfeited their privilege to appeal. Indeed, any liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may be properly invoked only in cases of some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but definitely not in cases like now where a liberal application would directly subvert the essence of the proceedings or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court.[20] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Before discussing its ruling, however, the Court finds it necessary to emphasize the well-entrenched doctrine that an appeal is not a matter of right, but is a mere statutory privilege. It may be availed of only in the manner provided by law and the rules. Thus, a party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules; otherwise, the privilege is lost.[20] | |||||
|
2013-03-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We emphasize that an appeal is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. Thus, an appeal may be availed of only in the manner provided by law and the rules.[26] Failure to follow procedural rules merits the dismissal of the case, especially when the rules themselves expressly say so, as in the instant case. While the Court, in certain cases, applies the policy of liberal construction, this policy may be invoked only in situations in which there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not when the application of the policy results in the utter disregard of procedural rules, as in this case.[27] | |||||