Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ELIZABETH DE LA CRUZ AND ALFREDO DE LA CRUZ v. OLGA RAMISCAL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175787 2009-02-04	PHILLIPS SEAFOOD CORPORATION v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS TINGA, J.
The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right - it is a statutory privilege and of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided by statute. It may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of the law.[21] Thus, in determining the appellate procedure governing administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or regulatory functions such as respondent BOI, a perusal of the legislative enactments creating them is imperative.
	GR No. 164150 2008-04-14	GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF BELGIUM v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of the same tenor is De la Cruz v. Ramiscal,[25] where we again explained at length that:Petitioner's justification that their former counsel belatedly transmitted said order to them only on 20 March 1998 is not a good reason for departing from the established rule. It was the responsibility of petitioners and their counsel to devise a system for the receipt of mail intended for them. Rules on procedure cannot be made to depend on the singular convenience of a party.
	GR No. 167637 2007-09-28	METRO EYE SECURITY v. JULIE V. SALSONA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As borne out by the records, the registry return card shows that indeed the counsel for the petitioner received the NLRC Resolution dated 24 August 2004 on 15 September 2004.[18] This being so, the 60-day period to file the Petition for Certiorari ends on 14 November 2004 which is a Sunday. Petitioner should then have filed the petition on the succeeding business day, which is 15 November 2004, a Monday. However, 15 November 2004 was declared a special non-working day throughout the Country in observance of the Feast of Ramadhan.[19] Thus, the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals on 16 November 2004, Tuesday, was still within the reglementary period. On this point, no procedural faux pas may be attributed to the petitioner. The supposed delayed filing of the petition as found by the Court of Appeals is belied by the registry return card which shows that counsel for the petitioner indeed received the NLRC Resolution dated 24 August 2004 on 15 September 2004. The registry return card commands great weight because it is considered as the official record of the court.[20]