This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice to spare itself from the consequences of belatedly filing an appeal. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem, as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal.[65] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case.[66] After all, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits.[67] | |||||
|
2005-08-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a doctrinal rule that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Thus, the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period for taking an appeal is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[5] Anyone seeking exemption from the application of this Rule has the burden of proving that exceptionally meritorious instances exist which warrant such departure.[6] However, the Court of Appeals did not find any compelling reason to relax the rules. Neither we. | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner designated its petition in G.R. No. 112526 as one for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA. In the same breath, it likewise averred that it was also being filed as a special civil action for certiorari as public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion.[36] Petitioner should not have been allowed, in the first place, to pursue such remedies simultaneously as these are mutually exclusive.[37] | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, this Court, may treat a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as having been filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice.[29] Such liberal application of the rules, however, finds no application if the petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review without any reason therefor.[30] | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when "there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.)[14] PCIB, at all events, appeals for a relaxation of the Rules given "the [substantial] issues and amounts involved." But even its present petition for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy from the CA Resolution. What it should have filed was a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But even if, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, treats the present petition for certiorari as one for review under Rule 45, petitioner has failed to proffer meritorious reasons or arguments for its allowance. | |||||
|
2002-08-09 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| lost. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is no reason why the question being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitions, could not have been raised on appeal.[16] Concededly, there were occasions when this Court treated a petition for certiorari as one filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, the circumstances prevailing in the instant case do not justify a deviation from a general rule. Notably, the instant petition was | |||||
|
2001-03-08 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| This is not to state that procedural requirements are to be taken lightly. The Court has had several occasions to hold that "rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, `have oft been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. xxx The reason for rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice xxx . Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions."[11] Thus, we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglamentary period is not a mere technicality, but jurisdictional.[12] | |||||
|
2000-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| nor plain, speedy or adequate remedy in ordinary course of law." Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[8] Proceeding to the merits of the case, petitioners admit that the Contract to Buy and Sell between private respondents and AFP-RSBS stipulates that the venue of actions based thereon shall be in the courts of Quezon City. They also concede that venue is waivable and may be | |||||