Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 191033 2016-01-11	ORCHARD GOLF v. ERNESTO V. YU PERALTA, J.
In general, procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are inviolable considering that appeal is not a constitutional right but merely a statutory privilege and that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional.[25] However, procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.[26] Relaxation of the rules may be had when the appeal, on its face, appears to be absolutely meritorious or when there are persuasive or compelling reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[27]
	AM No. RTJ-12-2332 2014-06-25	EFREN T. UY v. JUDGE ALAN L. FLORES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Another gross and patent error of Judge Flores is treating the comment of the Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Internal Revenue as a mere scrap of paper because the comment was filed through LBC, not by personal filing or registered mail. But the established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.[23] Thus, even if the comment was filed through LBC, it cannot be considered as a mere scrap of paper. The comment was duly filed on the date it was received by the trial court.
	GR No. 179638 2013-07-08	MIRANDA v. PABLO R. MIRANDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed the Notice of Appeal via a private courier, a mode of filing not provided in the Rules. Though not prohibited by the Rules, we cannot consider the filing of petitioners' Notice of Appeal via LBC timely filed. It is established jurisprudence that "the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court;" instead, "the date of actual receipt by the court x x x is deemed the date of filing of that pleading."[42] Records show that the Notice of Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was received by the court on the 16th day or one day beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.