Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MONEYTREND LENDING CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174149 2010-09-08	J. TIOSEJO INVESTMENT CORP. v. SPS. BENJAMIN AND ELEANOR ANG PEREZ, J.
With the foregoing procedural antecedents, the initial 15-day extension granted by the CA and the injunction under Sec. 4, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against further extensions "except for the most compelling reason", it was clearly inexcusable for petitioner to expediently plead its counsel's heavy workload as ground for seeking an additional extension of 10 days within which to file its petition for review. To our mind, petitioner would do well to remember that, rather than the low gate to which parties are unreasonably required to stoop, procedural rules are designed for the orderly conduct of proceedings and expeditious settlement of cases in the courts of law. Like all rules, they are required to be followed[50] and utter disregard of the same cannot be expediently rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction[51] which was never intended as an unfettered license to disregard the letter of the law or, for that matter, a convenient excuse to substitute substantial compliance for regular adherence thereto. When it comes to compliance with time rules, the Court cannot afford inexcusable delay.[52]
	GR No. 166411 2010-08-03	ELPIDIO CALIPAY v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
It bears to reiterate the settled rule that the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party.[11] The rules on periods for filing appeals are to be observed religiously, and parties who seek to avail themselves of the privilege must comply with the rules.[12]
	GR NO. 154717 2009-06-19	BONIFACIO M. MEJILLANO v. ENRIQUE LUCILLO QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again, we have ruled that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.[24] Rules of Procedure exist for a purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.[25] Procedural rules were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[26] It has been jurisprudentially held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[27]
	GR No. 162028 2008-07-14	DR. LORNA VILLA v. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ALTAVAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied) Rules of procedure do not exist for the convenience of the litigants.[9] These rules are established to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.[10] They are not to be trifled with lightly or overlooked by the mere expedience of invoking "substantial justice."[11] In a long line of decisions, this Court has repeatedly held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.[12] The same is true with respect to the rules on the manner of and periods for perfecting appeals.[13]
	GR No. 164150 2008-04-14	GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF BELGIUM v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The same principle was highlighted in Moneytrend Lending v. Court of Appeals,[30] where we again repeated that the general rule is that failure to file the appellant's brief within the prescribed period would result in the dismissal of the appeal, and any exemption from the rule must be for the most compelling reasons and the delay must be for a reasonable period:It may be that mere lapse of the period to file an appellant's brief does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal and loss of jurisdiction by the appellate court. It ought to be stressed, however, the relaxation of the rules on pleadings and practice to relieve a party-litigant of an injustice must be for most persuasive reasons. And in case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period.