Lawyerly

GR No. 193217

2014-02-26

PERALTA, J.

Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself.[10] A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court's decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken.[11] The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an outright dismissal.[12]

GR No. 191025

2013-07-31

RHODORA PRIETO v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It must be stressed that anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.[18] Parties praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules must be able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court's intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity."[19] Unfortunately for Prieto, she was unable to discharge this burden of proof.

GR No. 189754

2012-10-24

LITO BAUTISTA v. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN

PERALTA, J.

Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State through the solicitor general. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not undertake such appeal.[27]

GR NO. 143331

2007-10-05

FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC

AZCUNA, J.

Petitioner, therefore, availed itself of the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal. On this score alone, the petition could have been outrightly dismissed.[49] Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and in view of the erroneous conclusion of the trial judge clearly shown in the RTC decision, this Court shall proceed to address the issues involving a well-settled question of law.[50]

GR No. 135507

2005-11-29

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. NELSON GOIMCO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Moreover, the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise.[9] Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[10] Section 7, Rule 44 of the same Rules provides:"SEC. 7. Appellant's brief. It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee."

GR NO. 164736

2005-10-14

UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.[39] In this case, the petitioners failed to prove the existence of any fact which would warrant the relaxation of the rules. In fact, they have not even acknowledged that their petition was filed beyond the reglementary period.

GR No. 136477

2004-11-10

M.A. SANTANDER CONSTRUCTION v. ZENAIDA VILLANUEVA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[4] Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules,[5] and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.

GR No. 129788

2002-12-03

OROPEZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

SO ORDERED.[11]

GR No. 133978

2002-11-12

JOSE S. CANCIO v. MERENCIANA ISIP

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

prosecution based on the same act.[26] Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual. In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either

GR No. 145391

2002-08-26

AVELINO CASUPANAN v. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA

CARPIO, J.

"deemed instituted," and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of the civil action "deemed instituted" in the criminal action.[10] Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to

	GR No. 193217 2014-02-26	CORAZON MACAPAGAL v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself.[10] A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court's decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken.[11] The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an outright dismissal.[12]
	GR No. 191025 2013-07-31	RHODORA PRIETO v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It must be stressed that anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.[18] Parties praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules must be able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the Court's intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity."[19] Unfortunately for Prieto, she was unable to discharge this burden of proof.
	GR No. 189754 2012-10-24	LITO BAUTISTA v. SHARON G. CUNETA-PANGILINAN PERALTA, J.
Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State through the solicitor general. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not undertake such appeal.[27]
	GR NO. 143331 2007-10-05	FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner, therefore, availed itself of the wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal. On this score alone, the petition could have been outrightly dismissed.[49] Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and in view of the erroneous conclusion of the trial judge clearly shown in the RTC decision, this Court shall proceed to address the issues involving a well-settled question of law.[50]
	GR No. 135507 2005-11-29	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. NELSON GOIMCO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Moreover, the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise.[9] Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.[10] Section 7, Rule 44 of the same Rules provides:"SEC. 7. Appellant's brief. It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee."
	GR NO. 164736 2005-10-14	UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG CALLEJO, SR., J.
Anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.[39] In this case, the petitioners failed to prove the existence of any fact which would warrant the relaxation of the rules. In fact, they have not even acknowledged that their petition was filed beyond the reglementary period.
	GR No. 136477 2004-11-10	M.A. SANTANDER CONSTRUCTION v. ZENAIDA VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[4] Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules,[5] and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.
	GR No. 129788 2002-12-03	OROPEZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
SO ORDERED.[11]
	GR No. 133978 2002-11-12	JOSE S. CANCIO v. MERENCIANA ISIP YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
prosecution based on the same act.[26] Not being deemed instituted in the criminal action based on culpa criminal, a ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action, i.e., culpa contractual. In the same vein, the filing of the collection case after the dismissal of the estafa cases against respondent did not amount to forum-shopping. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
	GR No. 145391 2002-08-26	AVELINO CASUPANAN v. MARIO LLAVORE LAROYA CARPIO, J.
"deemed instituted," and may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and independent civil action based on these articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of the civil action "deemed instituted" in the criminal action.[10] Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is still given the option to file a separate civil action to recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to

NEPLUM v. EVELYN V. ORBESO