This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners do not have the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application for certiorari will be directed.[74] Indeed, referral to the Supreme Court as the court of last resort will simply be empty rhetoric if party-litigants are able to flout judicial hierarchy at will. The Court reserves the direct invocation of its jurisdiction only when there are special and important reasons clearly and especially set out in the petition that would justify the same.[75] | |||||
|
2015-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the instant case suffers from procedural infirmities which this Court cannot ignore. While this petition is to be treated as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case.[13] | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provision of law.[16] An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated.[17] The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases.[18] In an age where courts are bedevilled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.[19] Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. In the instant case, petitioner remained obstinate in her non-observance of the said Rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with her late plea for liberality in construing the Rules. On the above basis alone, the Court finds that the instant petition is dismissible. | |||||