This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Rosquita and Villanueva must be reminded that the present case is no longer an original suit recognized under our January 31, 2012 Resolution, but an appeal from the CA’s adverse ruling that was rendered after the parties were given full opportunity to be heard. Since we are dealing here with an appealed case, compliance with the required period for appeal is imperative.[68] | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts.[14] Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed.[15] Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case.[16] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Granted by the CA an extension of fifteen (15) days from 25 October, 2003 or until 9 November, 2003 within which to file its petition for review,[29] it does not likewise help ZFMC's cause any that it was only able to do so on 24 November 2003.[30] Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process,[31] it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.[32] Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory.[33] Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not[34] and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same.[35] The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[36] | |||||
|
2010-09-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds is concededly frowned upon,[39] it bears emphasizing that the procedural requirements of the rules on appeal are not harmless and trivial technicalities that litigants can just discard and disregard at will.[40] Neither being a natural right nor a part of due process, the rule is settled that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[41] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, in fact, not only mandatory but jurisdictional.[42] Considering that they are requirements which cannot be trifled with as mere technicality to suit the interest of a party,[43] failure to perfect an appeal in the prescribed manner has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[44] | |||||