This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This Court has invariably ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[20] | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and to prevent undue delay in the disposition of this case, we tackle the next issue raised by petitioner despite the CA's proper dismissal of her petition.[15] This was a criminal case and the possibility of a person being deprived unjustly of her liberty due to the procedural lapse of counsel was a strong and compelling reason to warrant suspension of the Rules of Court.[16] For the rule-making power of this Court is coupled with the duty to protect and promote constitutional and substantive rights,[17] not to defeat them. Thus, the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[18] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As the Court held in De Guzman v. People:[5] | |||||