This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's assertion that her counsel is partly to be blamed for her legal predicament is not persuasive. Indeed, there have been myriad of instances when the Court has relaxed the rule on the binding effect of counsel's negligence and allowed a litigant another chance to present his case, to wit: (1) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. Unfortunately, none of these exceptions obtain here.[26] | |||||
|
2014-08-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We begin by reminding the petitioner that the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the law. Being the party who sought to appeal, he must comply with the requirements of the relevant rules; otherwise, he would lose the statutory right to appeal.[16] It cannot be over-emphasized, indeed, that the procedures regulating appeals as laid down in the Rules of Court must be followed because strict compliance with them was indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice.[17] | |||||
|
2013-10-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In this case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa was promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of judgment, the petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 or more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed with the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[13] Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner's motion inasmuch as by the time the petitioner filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The Court has already stressed that "the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost."[14] | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The failure to fulfill the requirements of Rule 65 disallows the CA from taking due course of the Petition;[61] otherwise appeals and motions for reconsideration would be rendered meaningless,[62] as stated time and again by this Court: [I]f resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.[63] x x x. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Reiterating the foregoing in Dimarucot v. People of the Philippines,[25] this Court stated that: The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, which may be exercised only in accordance with the law.[19] | |||||