Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEFFREY DAYRIT v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 174149 2010-09-08	J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG PEREZ, J.
While the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds is concededly frowned upon,[39] it bears emphasizing that the procedural requirements of the rules on appeal are not harmless and trivial technicalities that litigants can just discard and disregard at will.[40] Neither being a natural right nor a part of due process, the rule is settled that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[41] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is, in fact, not only mandatory but jurisdictional.[42] Considering that they are requirements which cannot be trifled with as mere technicality to suit the interest of a party,[43] failure to perfect an appeal in the prescribed manner has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[44]
	GR NO. 160540 2007-03-22	VICIA D. PASCUAL v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Petitioner was not denied due process on the mere premise that she was not able to submit her affidavit regarding where she allegedly spent the council's money. Due process means that a party has been given the opportunity to be heard.[10] When a party has been afforded a chance to present his or her own side, he cannot feign denial of due process.[11] In this case, the records are evident that petitioner herself participated as the only witness for the defense during the trial. She cannot now claim very belatedly that her constitutional right to due process was violated and that she was denied her day in court. What is repugnant to due process is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard through pleadings or otherwise,[12] which is not the case here.
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to seasonably perfect the appeal to a higher court renders the judgment of the lower court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has thereafter the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision in the case.[17]
	GR NO. 160479 2005-06-08	SPS. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA AND REMEDIOS D. ARQUIZA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In this case, the RTC opted not to conduct an ex parte hearing. It went out of its way and set the application for a writ of possession for hearing as shown by the trial court's Order[40] dated June 25, 2001. Moreover, the petitioners were allowed to file an Answer,[41] and a Rejoinder[42] to the private respondent's Reply. The petitioners were even allowed to adduce and offer documentary evidence.[43] What the fundamental law prohibits is total absence of opportunity to be heard. When a party has been afforded opportunity to present his side, such party cannot feign denial of due process.[44]