Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELSIE ANG v. DR. ERNIEFEL GRAGEDA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181956 2010-11-11	VICTORIA L. TEH v. NATIVIDAD TEH TAN NACHURA, J.
Once a judgment or order becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest.[36] No additions can be made to the decision, and no other action can be taken on it,[37] except to order its execution.[38]
	GR No. 126297 2010-02-02	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES v. CA CORONA, J.
In fine, as there was no dispute over the RTC finding that PSI and Dr. Ampil had no employer-employee relationship, such finding became final and conclusive even to this Court.[47] There was no reason for PSI to have raised it as an issue in its petition. Thus, whatever discussion on the matter that may have ensued was purely academic.
	GR No. 165471 2008-07-21	EMETERIO O. PASIONA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner's reason for the delay in filing an appeal, i.e., that he had to attend to taking the Bar Examinations before he could look for a new lawyer to represent him, is not enough justification to suspend the application of the rules of procedure in this case. He made his choice not to give this case his preferential attention and now he has to accept the consequences of such choice. As aptly stated in Ang v. Grageda,[28] the remedy of certiorari "is not a procedural devise to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor. Courts should frown upon any scheme to prolong litigations."[29]
	GR No. 150276 2008-02-12	CECILIA B. ESTINOZO v. CA NACHURA, J.
It is well to point out that with petitioner's erroneous filing of a motion for extension of time and with her non-filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review from the CA's decision, the challenged decision has already attained finality and may no longer be reviewed by this Court. The instant Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute for the lost appeal[41] certiorari is not a procedural device to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor.[42] When a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to review the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.[43]
	GR No. 158941 2008-02-11	TIMESHARE REALTY CORPORATION v. CESAR LAO and CYNTHIA V. CORTEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A judgment must become final at the time appointed by law[22] -- this is a fundamental principle upon which rests the efficacy of our courts whose processes and decrees command obedience only when these are perceived to have some degree of permanence and predictability. Thus, an appeal from such judgment, not being a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, must be perfected according to the mode and within the period prescribed by the law and the rules; otherwise, the appeal is forever barred, and the judgment becomes binding.[23]
	GR No. 171053 2007-10-15	SEHWANI v. IN-N-OUT BURGER YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision/final order final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or final order, much less to entertain the appeal.[20] True, this rule had been relaxed but only in highly meritorious cases to prevent a grave injustice from being done.[21] Such does not obtain in this case.
	GR No. 146769 2007-08-17	SPS. MAXIMO ABADILLA AND ENGRACIA C. ABADILLA v. VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA NACHURA, J.
Moreover, evident from the records is the fact that petitioners filed the instant certiorari petition to remedy their lapsed appeal. Petitioners received the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2000.[28] Following the Rules, petitioners had fifteen (15) days, or up to November 18, 2000 to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.[29] However, no appeal was ever filed. Instead, petitioners instituted the instant Petition for certiorari on January 2, 2001[30] to resuscitate their lost appeal. Well-settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of to substitute a lost appeal.[31] Certiorari is not a procedural devise to deprive the winning party of the fruits of the judgment in his or her favor.[32]
	GR NO. 158867 2006-08-22	JIMMY BANTING v. SPS. JOSE MAGLAPUZ AND RAYMUNDA BANDIN MAGLAPUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An order of the RTC dismissing an appeal from a decision of the MeTC for failure of appellant to file a memorandum on appeal is one such final order.[42] It is appealable by petition for review under Rule 42.[43]
	GR NO. 158867 2006-08-22	JIMMY BANTING v. SPS. JOSE MAGLAPUZ AND RAYMUNDA BANDIN MAGLAPUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The appeal was deemed abandoned when petitioners failed to file their memorandum on appeal despite sufficient time given to them by the court. A memorandum on appeal or an appeal brief is vital to an appeal for only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will be considered in the decision on the merits, except those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain and clerical errors. Hence, the lack of a memorandum on appeal is ground for the dismissal of an appeal.[49]