Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, given the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for failure to comply with Rule 15, Section 4, of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedures ( sic ). x x x [24] The bank filed a Notice of Appeal [25] to which petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss for being filed late, [26] which motion was granted by the trial court by Order [27] of February 10, 2003.
accordingly ordered it stricken off the record: After a serious evaluation of the arguments for/and against the instant Motion for Reconsideration, the Court believes and so-holds that, while it is true that the high Court has set aside technicality in order not to defeat the ends of justice in appropriate cases, it is likewise true that litigations at some point of time must end otherwise, litigation of cases will be endless. WHEREFORE, given the foregoing, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for failure to comply with Rule 15, Section 4, of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedures ( sic ). x x x [24] The bank filed a Notice of Appeal [25] to which petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss for being filed late, [26] which motion was granted by the trial court by Order [27] of February 10, 2003. The bank thereupon elevated via petition for certiorari [28] the case before the Court of Appeals (CA) faulting the trial court to have . . . COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE HEREIN ASSAILED ORDER DATED 10 FEBRUARY 2003 CONSIDERING THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY LOST JURISDICTION OF THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE PERFECTION OF THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL ON DECEMBER 11, 2002. . . . COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DENIED HEREIN PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ITS ORDER DATED 18 NOVEMBER 2002, THERE BEING STRONG AND COMPELLING REASONS TO ADMIT SAID MOTION AND TO CONSIDER THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND LAW ON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS BASED. [29] The bank, which is owned by the Government Service Insurance System, argued that to rigidly and strictly apply the rules of procedure would result to injustice and irreparable damage to the government as it stands to lose a substantial amount if not allowed to recover the proceeds of the loans. [30] The appellate court, by February 23, 2004 Decision, [31] found for the bank. Citing Labad v. University of Southeastern Philippines, [32] it ruled that while the right to appeal is a statutory and not a natural right, it is nevertheless an essential part of the judicial system, hence, courts should be cautious not to deprive a party of the right to appeal; and in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the trial court should have given the bank's Notice of Appeal due course to better serve the ends, and prevent a miscarriage of justice. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by Resolution [33] of May 25, 2004, the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed, raising these issues: Whether or not the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the order of the Regional Trial Court denying the notice of appeal and in giving due course to the notice of appeal. Whether the private respondent could still appeal a judgment which has become final and executory. [34] At the outset, clarification on petitioners' mo
G.R. No. 106564 - VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. B.A. ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE KALOOKAN RTC, BRANCH 122, AND EDWARD L. UNITE.
G.R. No. 106564 -
CaseLECA REALTY CORPORATION, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS.
G.R. NO. 155605 -
CaseG.R. No. 124243 - SPOUSES RUDY S. AMPELOQUIO, SR. AND LAGRIMAS OBNAMIA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FEDERICO A. TAÑADA, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 124243 -