Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MEATMASTERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. LELIS INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174193 2011-12-07	SAMUEL JULIAN v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court has consistently ruled in a number of cases that the payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. [44] It is a condition sine qua non for the appeal to be perfected and only then can a court acquire jurisdiction over the case. [45] The requirement of an appeal fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure and should not be undermined except for the most persuasive of reasons. Non-observance would be tantamount to no appeal being filed thereby rendering the challenged decision, resolution or order final and executory.
	GR No. 170728 2011-08-31	D. M. WENCESLAO v. CITY OF PARAÑAQUE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
With regard to petitioner's plea for a liberal treatment of the rules in order to promote substantial justice, the Court finds the same to be without merit. It is true that the rules may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures.[22] However, it must be stressed that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[23]
	GR No. 172574 2009-07-31	NOLI LIM v. ANGELITO DELOS SANTOS NOW HIS HEIRS PUNO, C.J.
Considering that petitioner has not proffered an acceptable explanation for the delay in the payment of the appeal fee, his reason not being one of the recognized exceptions, we agree with the Court of Appeals that there is no compelling reason to reverse the orders of the Office of the President dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner. It bears emphasizing that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal.[26]
	GR No. 156905 2007-09-05	ATHENA COMPUTERS v. WESNU A. REYES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
While the Rules of Court may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedures, nevertheless they must be faithfully followed.[14] In the instant case, petitioners have not shown any reason which justifies relaxation of the Rules. We have held that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[15] Not one of these persuasive reasons is present here.
	GR NO. 148505 2007-02-20	LEOPOLDO v. MENDOZA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed.[7] Not one of these exceptions is present here.