This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA erred in taking cognizance of the petition for review that was filed way beyond the reglementary period. Rules of procedure may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice and in order to give a litigant the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint. However, concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain its failure to comply with the rules[25] and prove the existence of exceptionally meritorious circumstances warranting such liberality.[26] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly pronounced that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional.[21] The failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.[22] Hence, anyone seeking an exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of an exceptionally meritorious instance warranting such deviation.[23] But none obtains in this case. | |||||