This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.[41] To reiterate, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[42] Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[43] Thus, the propriety of the monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter is already binding upon this Court, much more with the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party's own doing, nor must such party contribute to it. The extrinsic fraud must be employed against it by the adverse party, who, because of some trick, artifice, or device, naturally prevails in the suit.[52] It affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which the said judgment is obtained.[53] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines and Bricio Ygana v. Rafael Bitanga,[26] an exception to the foregoing rule is enunciated, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied him his day in court. For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice.[27] Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case.[28] Failing in this duty, they suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against them. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that the procedural errors may be overlooked, the issues raised by petitioners on the merits of its appeal are questions that have been addressed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53254 which we have affirmed with finality in G.R. No. 164999.[15] We do not see any compelling reason to allow the same issues to be opened anew in the instant petition. A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed. [16] | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In cases involving a monetary award, an employer seeking to appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC is unconditionally required by Article 223[22] of the Labor Code to post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award adjudged.[23] It should be stressed that the intention of lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.[24] The word "only" makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected.[25] Moreover, it bears stressing that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional,[26] and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable.[27] It cannot be overemphasized that the NLRC Rules, akin to the Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law.[28] | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We cannot overemphasize the importance of the strict application of the reglementary period to appeal which is compulsory and imperative. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.[7] Clearly, the Court of Appeals seriously erred in affirming the CSC Resolutions remanding the case to petitioner PSU for another investigation. | |||||