This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
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. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and paying the requisite docket fees and other lawful fees.[17] | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. To be sure, the Court will not countenance deviations from the rules. In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.[14] | |||||