This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is entrenched in our jurisprudence that perfection of an appeal in a manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making judgment final and executory.[32] While dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds is frowned upon, Article 223 of the Labor Code which prescribes the appeal bond requirement, however, is a rule of jurisdiction and not of procedure.[33] Hence, there is a little leeway for condoning a liberal interpretation thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements are mere technicalities.[34] It is axiomatic that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.[35] The timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of party.[36] We cannot condone the practice of parties who, either by their own or their counsel's inadvertence, have allowed the judgment to become final and executory and, after the same had reached finality, seeks the shield of substantial justice to assail it. | |||||
|
2013-08-19 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the BIR issued RMO No. 1-2000, which requires that any availment of the tax treaty relief must be preceded by an application with ITAD at least 15 days before the transaction. The Order was issued to streamline the processing of the application of tax treaty relief in order to improve efficiency and service to the taxpayers. Further, it also aims to prevent the consequences of an erroneous interpretation and/or application of the treaty provisions (i.e., filing a claim for a tax refund/credit for the overpayment of taxes or for deficiency tax liabilities for underpayment).[13] | |||||
|
2010-10-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In its Decision of August 30, 2007,[7] the NLRC found that SIP was the respondents' employer, but it sustained the labor arbiter's ruling that the employees were not illegally dismissed as the termination of SIP's concession to operate the canteen constituted an authorized cause for the severance of employer-employee relations. Furthermore, the respondents' admission that they applied with GMPC when it terminated SIP's concession is an indication that they were employees of SIP and that they were terminating their employment relationship with it. As the labor arbiter did, the NLRC regarded the closure of SIP's canteen operations involuntary, thus, negating the employees' entitlement to separation pay.[8] | |||||