This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2008-10-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| 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. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply strictly with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[19] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2007-02-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The right to appeal is not a natural right or 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. 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.[23] | |||||
|
2005-09-14 |
|||||
| First and foremost, 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. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.[10] The period to appeal is fixed by both statute and procedural rules. BP 129,[11] as amended, provides:Sec. 39. Appeals. The period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all these cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from. Provided, however, that in habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be (48) forty-eight hours from the notice of judgment appealed from. x x x | |||||