This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Further applying the Implementing Rules, there is one other reason for holding that petitioner failed to perfect her appeal. It is of record that she received the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order issued by DOLE-Bacolod, as indicated in the registry return card marked Annex "I".[33] Petitioner does not question this, except to point out that the registry return card does not indicate the date she received the order. That is of no consequence, for the fact remains that petitioner was put on actual notice not only of the existence of the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order but also of the summary investigation of her establishment. It behooves her to file a timely appeal to public respondent[34] or object to the conduct of the investigation.[35] Petitioner did neither, opting instead to sit idle and wait until the following year to question the investigation and resultant order, in the guise of opposing the writ of execution through a motion dubbed "Double Verified Special Appearance to Oppose 'Writ of Execution' For Being a Blatant and Dangerous Violation of Due Process."[36] Such appeal already went beyond the ten-day period allowed under Section 8(b) of Rule X-B of the Implementing Rules. | |||||
|
2005-09-09 |
|||||
| The premature invocation of the court's intervention was fatal to respondent's cause of action.[11] Hence, the dismissal of respondent's complaint was in order. | |||||