Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOROTEO SALAZAR v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR NO. 147776 2007-07-10	SPS. GUILLERMO MALISON AND AMELITA MALISON v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, 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. 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.[11] Nevertheless, it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[12]
	GR NO. 159153 2007-07-09	ISIDRO ANADON v. MIGUELINA HERRERA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 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. 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.[11] Nevertheless, it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[12]
	GR NO. 164375 2006-10-12	RODOLFO PAREDES v. ERNESTO VERANO TINGA, J.
A preliminary observation. The Court of Appeals had initially dismissed the petition lodged by petitioners on account of their failure to attach several relevant pleadings, citing Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Before this Court, petitioners devote some effort in arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on that procedural ground, while respondents in their comment similarly undertook to defend the appellate court's action on that point. We do not doubt that under Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeals has sufficient discretion to dismiss the petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the requirements enumerated in the section, including "such material portions of the record as are referred to [in the petition], and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto."[20] At the same time, "[dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims."[21] Thus, the Court has not hesitated to view Section 3 of Rule 46 with a liberal outlook, ruling for example that it was not necessary to attach certified true copies of such material portions of the record as referred to therein.[22]
	GR No. 158806 2004-12-16	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GROUP DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Further, this Court has consistently frowned upon the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds.[26] While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, it is, nonetheless, an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of a cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[27]
	GR No. 148189 2004-11-11	EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT PANGANIBAN, J.
[22] Salazar v. CA, 426 Phil. 864, 876, February 6, 2002.
	GR No. 130330 2003-09-26	FERNANDO GO v. MICHAEL TAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The fundamental purpose of procedural rules is to afford each litigant every opportunity to present evidence on his behalf in order that substantial justice is achieved. Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out such truth. The dispensation of justice and vindication of legitimate grievances should not be barred by technicalities.[6]
	GR No. 145915 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA QUISUMBING, J.
In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[76] we held that in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[77] This ruling found positive resonance in Doroteo Salazar and Dozen Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[78] Both are civil cases, where we granted new trial on motion of petitioners who stood to lose property due to the negligence of their respective counsels. In the present case, involving the death sentence, with more reason do appellants deserve to be heard, because their lives are about to be forfeit. Not that we are rewarding defense counsel's apparent antics, nor do we denigrate an appellant's stubborn refusal to be represented by a counsel de oficio. Having engaged the services of counsel, however, a party has justifiable reason to expect that only his chosen counsel could amply protect his interests in the case.