This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that procedural rules may be waived or dispensed with in the interest of substantial justice.[21] This Court may deign to veer away from the general rule if, on its face, the appeal appears to be absolutely meritorious.[22] Indeed, in a number of instances, procedural rules are relaxed in order to serve substantial justice. However, the Court sees no reason to do so in this case as there is no reason to reverse the findings of the CA, to wit: It must be considered that his [Calipay's] former counsel had manifested in his "Withdrawal of Appearance" (p. 80, Rollo) that he was withdrawing as counsel by reason of his (Calipay) desire to engage the services of another counsel for purposes of perfecting his appeal from the Labor Arbiter's Decision and said "Withdrawal of Appearance" was duly signed by his former counsel with the petitioner's conformity thereto and which therefore showed that the latter had assented to such withdrawal by reason stated therein. Hence, petitioner Calipay could not blame their former counsel for the non-perfection of their appeal. And even if it were true, that there was untimely withdrawal of his counsel, the latter should not be totally blamed as the herein petitioner is duty bound to protect his interests and he should have been more vigilant and circumspect of his right in pursuing his case by observing the rule on perfection of appeal.[23] | |||||