Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEMINA M. ONGPAUCO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181956 2010-11-11	VICTORIA L. TEH v. NATIVIDAD TEH TAN NACHURA, J.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner, and according to procedures, laid down by law.[47] Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the judgment or final order, much less to entertain the appeal.[48]
	GR No. 158271 2008-04-08	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The determination on whether the attached vehicles are properly cared for, and the burden to show that, by keeping the attached office furniture, office equipment and supplies, it will necessarily become, or is likely to become, worthless to China Bank, and by consequence to ACDC, are factual issues requiring reception of evidence which the Court cannot do in a petition for certiorari. Factual issues are beyond the scope of certiorari because they do not involve any jurisdictional issue.[43]
	GR No. 158460 2007-08-24	PFIZER v. EDWIN V. GALAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
There are two (2) jurisprudential rules of long-standing in this jurisdiction. First, is the hoary rule that factual issues are beyond the scope of certiorari as they do not involve any jurisdictional issue.[7] As held by this Court in Quiambao v. Court of Appeals,[8] in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Second, is the cardinal principle that factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, when devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness, are accorded respect if not finality by the Court of Appeals.[9] And where the findings of the Labor Arbiter are affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, these are deemed binding, final, and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[10] It is not the function of the Supreme Court to inquire into the correctness of the evaluation of the evidence which was the basis for the labor official's ruling. And this Court may not disturb the findings of facts of those officials who have gained expertise in their specialized field, where such findings have been given the stamp of approval by the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 167400 2006-06-30	PRISCILLA T. RIGOR v. TENTH DIVISION OF CA GARCIA, J.
At any rate, an appeal by petition for review under Rule 45, assuming its availability, is now lost for the petitioners. An appeal is a mere statutory right to be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law, and its timely perfection within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional.[9] Again, going by the records, we note that petitioners received their copy of the CA resolution denying their motion for reconsideration[10] on January 21, 2005. As appearing on the date stamped on its face, this petition was filed with this Court only on March 31, 2005, or about 67 days from notice of the denying resolution of the CA. In this connection, Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules provides:Sec. 2. Time of filing; extension. The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. (Underscoring added.)
	GR Nos. 143803 2005-11-17	CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS v. COA GARCIA, J.
Appeal is not a natural right nor is it part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law.[13] The COA Rules expressly spelled out how appeal from a decision or disallowance by an Auditor should be made. No such appeal in writing was filed by petitioner with the COA until September 27, 1996.
	GR Nos. 159969 & 160116 2005-11-15	BECTON DICKINSON PHILS. v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
In resolving this issue, it may well be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law.[20] Petitioners cannot insist, as there is no duty on the part of the court or the NLRC for that matter, to take cognizance of an appeal which has not been perfected in accordance with the rules of procedure laid down therefor. It is only in the exercise of courts' sound judicial discretion and in the interest of substantial justice, that this Court may suspend the rules should it find cogent reasons for doing so.