This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Respondent indeed availed of the wrong remedy of certiorari under Rule 65. Due, however, to the nature of the case, ape involving workers' wages and benefits, and the fact that whether the petition was filed under Rule 65 or appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 it was filed within 15 days (the reglementary period under Rule 45) from petitioner's receipt of the resolution of the Court of Appeals' Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration, the Court resolved to give it due course. As Almelor v. RTC of Las Piñas, et al.[2] restates: Generally, on appeal taken either to the Supreme Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. This is to prevent the party from benefiting from one's neglect and mistakes. However, like most rules, it carries certain exceptions. After all, the ultimate purpose of all rules of procedures is to achieve substantial justice as expeditously as possible. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Its purpose is to bring up for review a final judgment of the lower court. The courts should, thus, proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of his right to appeal.[14] In the recent case of Almelor v. RTC of Las Pinas City, Br. 254,[15] the Court reiterated: While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. | |||||