Lawyerly

GR No. 172458

2011-12-14

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that PNB has not demonstrated any cogent reason for this Court to take an exception and excuse PNB's blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a petition for review. Furthermore, the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement. One cannot escape the rigid observance of this rule by claiming oversight, or in this case, lack of foresight. Neither can it be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party. Verily, the periods for filing petitions for review and for certiorari are to be observed religiously. "Just as [the] losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the x x x right to enjoy the finality of the decision."[43] In Air France Philippines v. Leachon,[44] we held: Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of the privilege must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays, and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. For sure, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment appealed from final and executory.[45]

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. 158708

2010-08-18

JUSTINA MANIEBO v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

Evidently, the petitioner repeatedly disregarded the rules too many times to merit any tolerance by the Court, thereby exhibiting a deplorable tendency to trivialize the rules of procedure. Yet, such rules were not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.[26] The bare invocation of substantial justice was not a magic wand that would compel the suspension of the rules of procedure. Of necessity, the reviewing court had also to assess whether the appeal was substantially meritorious on its face, or not, for only after such finding could the review court ease the often stringent rules of procedure.[27] Otherwise, the rules of procedure would be reduced to mere trifles.

GR No. 149548

2009-12-04

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Indeed, the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory.[40] A relaxation of the rules may, however, for meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice.[41] The Court finds that in giving due course to DAMBA-NSFW's appeal, the appellate court committed no reversible error. Consider its ratiocination: x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]'s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right over the parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, but also that of the whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a Joint Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the [DAMBA-NSFW] with regard to [Roxas & Co.]'s application for partial and total cancellation of the CLOA in DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There is a pressing need for an extensive discussion of the issues as raised by both parties as the matter of canceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost importance, involving as it does the probable displacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries and their families. x x x x (underscoring supplied)

GR No. 180755

2009-06-19

PEDIATRICA v. JOSELITO T. RAFAELES

NACHURA, J.

Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions set by law.[17] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[18]

GR No. 164314

2008-09-26

SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES

REYES, R.T., J.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.[70] The bare invocation of "substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will compel the court to suspend the rules of procedure.[71] Rather, the appellate court needs to assess if the appeal is absolutely meritorious on its face. Only after such finding, can it ease the often stringent rules of procedure.[72] The circumstances obtaining in this case clearly show that such relaxation of rules is unwarranted.

GR No. 168985

2008-07-23

ACCESSORIES SPECIALIST INC. v. ERLINDA B. ALABANZA

NACHURA, J.

Furthermore, we would like to reiterate that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[16]

GR No. 175163

2007-10-19

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASCOT HOLDINGS

GARCIA, J.

The Court may deign to veer away from the general rule only if, in its assessment, the appeal on its face appears absolutely meritorious. Indeed, the Court has, in a number of instances, relaxed procedural rules in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.[6] In the circumstances obtaining in this case, however, the occasion does not warrant the desired relaxation.

GR NO. 164736

2005-10-14

UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the present petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period. Hence, its outright dismissal would be proper. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[37] Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[38]

GR NO. 150915

2005-04-11

MARIO MANABAN v. SARPHIL CORPORATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is axiomatic that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.[25] The timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party.[26] However, in some instances, the Court has allowed a liberal application of the rules of procedure. After all, they are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court - a strict and rigid application of technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[27]

GR No. 148189

2004-11-11

EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

Generally, the right to appeal is not constitutional, natural or inherent;[9] it is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of the law.[10] It has thus been held that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period allowed by law[11] renders the questioned decision final and executory and precludes the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction to review it.[12]

AC. No. 6295

2004-04-14

JOSEFINA B. FAJARDO v. ATTY. DANILO DELA TORRE

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Furthermore, it was held in Rabanal v. Tugade[10] that an attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Implicit with this directive is the command that all lawyers are duty-bound to keep abreast of the law and legal developments as well as to participate in continuing legal education programs.[11] All law practitioners should be fully conversant of the requirements for the filing of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[12] Ignorantia legis non excusat.[13] Ignorance encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws.[14]

	GR No. 172458 2011-12-14	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court agrees with the CTA En Banc that PNB has not demonstrated any cogent reason for this Court to take an exception and excuse PNB's blatant disregard of the basic procedural rules in a petition for review. Furthermore, the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement. One cannot escape the rigid observance of this rule by claiming oversight, or in this case, lack of foresight. Neither can it be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party. Verily, the periods for filing petitions for review and for certiorari are to be observed religiously. "Just as [the] losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner have the x x x right to enjoy the finality of the decision."[43] In Air France Philippines v. Leachon,[44] we held: Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of the privilege must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays, and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. For sure, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment appealed from final and executory.[45]
	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. 158708 2010-08-18	JUSTINA MANIEBO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Evidently, the petitioner repeatedly disregarded the rules too many times to merit any tolerance by the Court, thereby exhibiting a deplorable tendency to trivialize the rules of procedure. Yet, such rules were not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.[26] The bare invocation of substantial justice was not a magic wand that would compel the suspension of the rules of procedure. Of necessity, the reviewing court had also to assess whether the appeal was substantially meritorious on its face, or not, for only after such finding could the review court ease the often stringent rules of procedure.[27] Otherwise, the rules of procedure would be reduced to mere trifles.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Indeed, the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory.[40] A relaxation of the rules may, however, for meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice.[41] The Court finds that in giving due course to DAMBA-NSFW's appeal, the appellate court committed no reversible error. Consider its ratiocination: x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]'s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right over the parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, but also that of the whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a Joint Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the [DAMBA-NSFW] with regard to [Roxas & Co.]'s application for partial and total cancellation of the CLOA in DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There is a pressing need for an extensive discussion of the issues as raised by both parties as the matter of canceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost importance, involving as it does the probable displacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries and their families. x x x x (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 180755 2009-06-19	PEDIATRICA v. JOSELITO T. RAFAELES NACHURA, J.
Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions set by law.[17] The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[18]
	GR No. 164314 2008-09-26	SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES REYES, R.T., J.
Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights.[70] The bare invocation of "substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will compel the court to suspend the rules of procedure.[71] Rather, the appellate court needs to assess if the appeal is absolutely meritorious on its face. Only after such finding, can it ease the often stringent rules of procedure.[72] The circumstances obtaining in this case clearly show that such relaxation of rules is unwarranted.
	GR No. 168985 2008-07-23	ACCESSORIES SPECIALIST INC. v. ERLINDA B. ALABANZA NACHURA, J.
Furthermore, we would like to reiterate that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[16]
	GR No. 175163 2007-10-19	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASCOT HOLDINGS GARCIA, J.
The Court may deign to veer away from the general rule only if, in its assessment, the appeal on its face appears absolutely meritorious. Indeed, the Court has, in a number of instances, relaxed procedural rules in order to serve and achieve substantial justice.[6] In the circumstances obtaining in this case, however, the occasion does not warrant the desired relaxation.
	GR NO. 164736 2005-10-14	UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the present petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period. Hence, its outright dismissal would be proper. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[37] Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[38]
	GR NO. 150915 2005-04-11	MARIO MANABAN v. SARPHIL CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is axiomatic that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.[25] The timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party.[26] However, in some instances, the Court has allowed a liberal application of the rules of procedure. After all, they are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court - a strict and rigid application of technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[27]
	GR No. 148189 2004-11-11	EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT PANGANIBAN, J.
Generally, the right to appeal is not constitutional, natural or inherent;[9] it is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of the law.[10] It has thus been held that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period allowed by law[11] renders the questioned decision final and executory and precludes the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction to review it.[12]
	AC. No. 6295 2004-04-14	JOSEFINA B. FAJARDO v. ATTY. DANILO DELA TORRE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Furthermore, it was held in Rabanal v. Tugade[10] that an attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. Implicit with this directive is the command that all lawyers are duty-bound to keep abreast of the law and legal developments as well as to participate in continuing legal education programs.[11] All law practitioners should be fully conversant of the requirements for the filing of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[12] Ignorantia legis non excusat.[13] Ignorance encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws.[14]

POLICARPIO T. CUEVAS v. BAIS STEEL CORPORATION