This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-03-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We are appalled that the CA turned a blind eye to the egregious error of the RTC by limiting its attention to the supposedly patent defects and shortcomings of the petitioner's petition for review. The foremost noted defect was the non-payment of the docket fees, which, in other circumstances, would have alone warranted the outright rejection of the petition for review due to the mandatory and jurisdictional character of the payment of the full amount of docket fees within the prescribed period.[26] Such payment was the condition sine qua non for the perfection of the appeal by petition for review, and only by such payment could the CA have acquired jurisdiction over the appeal.[27] But the appeal of the conviction before the RTC had not yet been completed, and, as such, the petition for review of the petitioner was logically premature. In other words, it was plain to the CA that it could not validly act on the petition for review. To insist otherwise would be unjust against the petitioner, considering that the wrong turn in procedure that had generated the whole problem had been caused by the RTC. | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is well-established that "[t]he right to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law." [41] "Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal." [42] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rulings in these cases have been consistently reiterated in subsequent cases: Guevarra v. Court of Appeals,[34] Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill,[35] Gegare v. Court of Appeals,[36] Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,[37] Sps. Manalili v. Sps. de Leon,[38] La Salette College v. Pilotin,[39] Saint Louis University v. Spouses Cordero,[40] M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,[41] Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo,[42] Meatmasters Int'l. Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev't. Corp.,[43] Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,[44] Enriquez v. Enriquez,[45] KLT Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc.,[46] Tan v. Link,[47] Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap,[48] and most recently in Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation (INTERCO),[49] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have upheld the dismissal of deficient appeals in such cases as Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,[28] Chan v. Court of Appeals,[29] Oriental Assurance Corp. v. Solidbank Corp.,[30] Manalili v. De Leon,[31] La Salette College v. Pilotin,[32] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company,[33] Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[34] M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,[35] and Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.[36] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that while we have laid down the rule on the discretionary interpretation of the rules on the perfection of an appeal or the payment of docket fees, we have also in some cases refused to give due course to an appeal for failure to pay docket fees. Thus, in Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,[27] petitioners therein failed to pay the docket fees on the ground that they were not advised by the trial court and the Court of Appeals as to when to pay the same. In affirming the dismissal of therein petitioners' appeal, this Court reiterated the rule that anyone seeking exemption from the application of the mandatory nature of the payment of docket fees has the burden of proving that exceptionally meritorious instances exist which warrant a departure from the requirement of the law. Of the same tenor is our ruling in Enriquez v. Enriquez,[28] in which we repeated that concomitant to the liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules.[29] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has consistently held that payment of docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. [emphasis supplied][13] We have upheld the dismissal of such deficient appeals even when the incidents preceded the amendment of Section 13, Rule 41, as in such cases as Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,[14] Chan v. Court of Appeals,[15] Oriental Assurance Corp. v. Solidbank,[16] Manalili v. De Leon,[17] La Salette College v. Pilotin,[18] Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company,[19] Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[20] M.A. Santander Construction v. Villanueva,[21] and Tamayo v. Tamayo.[22] Tellingly, in all these cited cases, the dismissal of the appeals or notices of appeal was undertaken prior to the amendment of Section 13, Rule 41 in 2000. | |||||
|
2005-10-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Lawyers engaged to represent a client in a case bear the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with warmth, zeal and utmost diligence.[13] They must constantly keep in mind that their actions or omissions would be binding on the client.[14] Verily, in representing the latter, they are expected to exercise utmost prudence and capability.[15] A law practitioner of long standing,[16] respondent ought to be aware that the payment of full docket and other legal fees is required in filing appeals and petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court, considering that these remedies are not matters of right, but mere statutory privileges; hence, accepting them is highly discretionary on the part of the Court.[17] Even before the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure made the payment of full docket and other legal fees mandatory for appeals[18] and petitions, strict compliance with the required payment had always been enjoined. | |||||