This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| This Court has, on several occasions, ruled that the emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the determination and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of technicalities.[23] However, failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory.[24] In addition, the liberal application of rules of procedure for perfecting appeals is still the exception, and not the rule; and it is only allowed in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.[25] This exceptional situation does not obtain in this case as in fact, both the rulings of the CSC and CA are supported by evidence on record. While the petitioner argues that she was denied the opportunity to fully present her defenses, she was able to give her answer to the charges, and even moved for a reconsideration of the decision of the CSC-NCR. Her arguments and defenses were already reviewed and considered by the agency when it discussed its rulings. As held by this Court in the case of Autencio v. Manara,[26] the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Furthermore, the counsel's actions and mistakes on procedural matters bind the client.[27] Where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.[28] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in the interest of substantial justice.[21] This Court may deign to veer away from the general rule if, on its face, the appeal appears to be absolutely meritorious.[22] Indeed, in a number of instances, procedural rules are relaxed in order to serve substantial justice. However, the Court sees no reason to do so in this case as there is no reason to reverse the findings of the CA, to wit: It must be considered that his [Calipay's] former counsel had manifested in his "Withdrawal of Appearance" (p. 80, Rollo) that he was withdrawing as counsel by reason of his (Calipay) desire to engage the services of another counsel for purposes of perfecting his appeal from the Labor Arbiter's Decision and said "Withdrawal of Appearance" was duly signed by his former counsel with the petitioner's conformity thereto and which therefore showed that the latter had assented to such withdrawal by reason stated therein. Hence, petitioner Calipay could not blame their former counsel for the non-perfection of their appeal. And even if it were true, that there was untimely withdrawal of his counsel, the latter should not be totally blamed as the herein petitioner is duty bound to protect his interests and he should have been more vigilant and circumspect of his right in pursuing his case by observing the rule on perfection of appeal.[23] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law.[25] Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of judgment.[26] Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees;[27] non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petition's dismissal.[28] Thus, payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.[29] It is an essential requirement, without which, the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal has been filed.[30] | |||||