Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE ALMEDA v. ESPELETA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
The general rule is that the failure of the petitioner to timely file an MR within the 15-day reglementary period fixed by law renders the decision or resolution final and executory.[15] The same rule applies in appeals. The filing and the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law are not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[16]
	GR No. 164255 2011-09-07	SPS. ELBE LEBIN AND ERLINDA LEBIN v. VILMA S. MIRASOL BERSAMIN, J.
The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law.[36] The statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the one who avails himself of it to strictly comply with the statutes or rules that are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, like when the loftier demands of substantial justice and equity require the relaxation,[37] or when there are other special and meritorious circumstances and issues,[38] such statutes or rules should remain inviolable.[39]
	GR NO. 142534 2006-06-27	DONATO SUMAWAY v. URBAN BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion of extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. Jurisprudence is consistent in ruling that 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,[14] although the Court, in exceptional circumstances,[15] allowed the filing of a belated notice of appeal. Thus, if the Court were to strictly apply the jurisprudence in petitioners' case, the inevitable conclusion is that the CA was correct in dismissing their appeal. It does not matter whether respondents' motion to dismiss was filed after the trial court already approved their notice of appeal, or that they have already paid the docket fees and filed their appellants' brief. It should be borne in mind that the legality of an appeal may be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the appellate court, and the latter is not precluded from dismissing the same on the ground of its being out of time.[16]
	GR No. 136477 2004-11-10	M.A. SANTANDER CONSTRUCTION v. ZENAIDA VILLANUEVA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The mere filing of the Notice of Appeal is not enough, for it must be accompanied by the payment of the correct appellate docket fees.[7] Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.[8] It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal had been filed. Failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory.[9]