This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In addition, the present case calls for a liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing, because the rights of the petitioners were not affected. This Court has held that an exception to the rules on notice of hearing is where it appears that the rights of the adverse party were not affected.[50] The purpose for the notice of hearing coincides with procedural due process,[51] for the court to determine whether the adverse party agrees or objects to the motion, as the Rules do not fix any period within which to file a reply or opposition.[52] In probate proceedings, "what the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard."[53] In the case at bar, as evident from the Shari'a District Court's order dated January 17, 2006, petitioners' counsel received a copy of the motion for reconsideration in question. Petitioners were certainly not denied an opportunity to study the arguments in the said motion as they filed an opposition to the same. Since the Shari'a District Court reset the hearing for the motion for reconsideration in the same order, petitioners were not denied the opportunity to object to the said motion in a hearing. Taken together, these circumstances show that the purpose for the rules of notice of hearing, procedural process, was duly observed. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Complainant erroneously thought that when respondent failed to act on his notice of appeal, he lost his right to appeal the court's order denying his motion for intervention and that his only remedy was to file a petition for certiorari with the CA which he, in fact, filed. He failed to consider that a party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him, upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time and upon payment of the docket fees. The notice of appeal does not require the approval of the court. The function of the notice of appeal is merely to notify the trial court that the appellant was availing of the right to appeal, and not to seek the court's permission that he be allowed to pose an appeal.[11] | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, if it appears that the consequences for incurring procedural infractions before the CA and for pursuing the wrong remedial tack are ostensibly harsh, it should be remembered that there is no innate right to appeal. Appeal is a statutory right, which may be exercised only within the prescribed limits. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a rational and orderly method by which appeal can be pursued, and even contingency remedial measures if appeal can no longer be timely pursued.[36] For the failure to duly comply with the said Rules and to undertake a timely appeal despite the existence of such remedy, the petitioners must bear the consequences. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, if the consequences for pursuing the wrong remedial tack in this case seem harsh, it should be remembered that there is no innate right to appeal. Appeal is a statutory right which may be exercised within the prescribed limits. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a rational and orderly method by which appeal can be pursued, and even contingency remedial measures if appeal could no longer be timely pursued.[28] Petitioner must bear the consequence for its failure to undertake a timely appeal when such remedy existed. Once again, we stress that the rules of procedure were promulgated for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard following judicial procedure and in the correct forum. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance by the parties of the procedural rules.[29] | |||||