This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections in order to serve better the ends of justice.[27] It is the duty of the counsel to make sure of the nature of the errors he proposes to assign, to determine which court has appellate jurisdiction, and to follow the requisites for appeal.[28] Any error in compliance may be fatal to the client's cause.[29] It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise.[30] The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.[31] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Time and again the Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[15] | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Office of the Ombudsman and the appellate court invariably found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct. The Court affirms this finding following the salutary rule that factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded not only respect but even finality by the Court. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial. The gauge of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. Here, there is substantial evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding, as sustained by the CA, that petitioner is guilty of the offense charged against him. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and shall not be disturbed by the Court.[17] It is not the task of this Court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before administrative bodies and to substitute its own judgment for that of the latter.[18] | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| with the provisions of law.[17] | |||||