On August 8, 2010, knowing fully well that the aforesaid Supreme Court Decision of December 4, 2009 of G.R. No. 182645 had lapsed into finality and that the same had already become part of law and jurisprudence, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta, as Ponente of another Supreme Court case, promulgated a Decision in SC G.R. No. 175116: “Jerry Ong vs. PDIC”, in which he used as part of his jurisprudence a specific cited portion of the aforesaid December 4, 2009 Supreme Court Decision of the Hermogenes Rodriguez intestate case, the citation on page 10 of aforesaid SC Decision which states:
“Thus,
WE FIND NO ERROR COMMITTED by the CA when it sustained the RTC’s
dismissal of petitioner’s appeal for failure to comply with the rules.
In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estate) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et. al. vs. Jaime Robles, WE NULLIFIED THE C.A. DECISION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION in taking cognizance of an appeal from the RTC DECISION WHICH HAD ALREADY LAPSED INTO FINALITY for failure of the party to file a record on appeal within the reglamentary period, and said:
This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of appeal in
the manner and within the period laid down by law IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY BUT
JURISDICTIONAL. The failure to
perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the
right of the party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the case. The right of
appeal is NOT 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 the law. The
party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the
rules. Failing to do so, the right of
appeal is lost. The reason for the rules
of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible,
and intolerable delays will result, without rules governing practice. Public policy and sound practice demand that JUDGMENTS
OF COURTS SHOULD BECOME FINAL AND IRREVOCABLE AT SOME TIME DEFINITE DATE FIXED
BY LAW. Such rules are incident to
the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. Thus, we have held that the failure to
perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is NOT A MERE
TECHNICALITY, BUT JURISDICTIONAL.
Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED PERIOD, so does the winner also have the CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO
ENJOY THE FINALITY OF THE DECISION. Failure
to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.
There are exceptions to the rule, unfortunately respondents did not
present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of the said rule.”
(SCRA 607, p.770-777, December 4, 2009)
.tif)
No comments:
Post a Comment