Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ADELIA C. MENDOZA v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Except for cases provided in the Constitution,[70] appeal is a "purely statutory right."[71] The right to appeal "must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law"[72] and requires strict compliance with the Rules of Court on appeals.[73] Otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed, and its dismissal shall not be a deprivation of due process of law.
	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Except for cases provided in the Constitution,[70] appeal is a "purely statutory right."[71] The right to appeal "must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law"[72] and requires strict compliance with the Rules of Court on appeals.[73] Otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed, and its dismissal shall not be a deprivation of due process of law.
	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In this case, Lui Enterprises did not substantially comply with the rules on the contents of the appellant's brief. It admitted that its appellant's brief lacked the required subject index, page references to the record, and table of cases, textbooks, and statutes cited. However, it did not even correct its admitted "technical omissions"[82] by filing an amended appellant's brief with the required contents.[83] Thus, this case does not allow a relaxation of the rules. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Lui Enterprises' appeal.
	GR No. 193494 2014-03-07	LUI ENTERPRISES v. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Lui Enterprises' appellant's brief lacked a subject index, page references to the record, and a table of cases, textbooks, and statutes cited. These requirements "were designed to assist the appellate court in the accomplishment of its tasks, and, overall, to enhance the orderly administration of justice."[92] This court will not disregard rules on appeal "in the guise of liberal construction."[93] For this court to liberally construe the Rules, the party must substantially comply with the Rules and correct its procedural lapses.[94] Lui Enterprises failed to remedy these errors.
	GR No. 172829 2012-07-18	ROSA H. FENEQUITO v. BERNARDO VERGARA 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 provisions of law.[12] An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.[13] Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated.[14] The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases.[15] In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity.[16] Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants.[17] In the instant case, petitioners had all the opportunity to comply with the Rules. Nonetheless, they remained obstinate in their nonobservance even when they sought reconsideration of the ruling of the CA dismissing their petition. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their late plea for liberality in construing the Rules.
	GR No. 151898 2012-03-14	RICARDO RIZAL v. LEONCIA NAREDO REYES, J.
However, while this Court may be lenient in some instances on formal defects of pleadings filed with the court, it could not close its eyes when a litigant continuously ignores technical rules, to the point of wanton disregard of the rationale behind those rules. In fact, this Court has consistently affirmed the importance of complying with the requirements in Section 13(a), Rule 44[15] of the Rules of Court in many of its decisions, particularly in Mendoza v. United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc.,[16] where the Court explicitly stated that: Rule 44 and 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the Court of Appeals Rules of Procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. The Court of Appeals noted in its Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration that despite ample opportunity, petitioners never attempted to file an amended appellants' brief correcting the deficiencies of their brief, but obstinately clung to their argument that their Appellants' Brief substantially complied with the rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal.