An appeal is an essential part of our judicial system.

We have advised the court to proceed with caution so as not to

deprive a part of the right to appeal and instructed that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities. [National
Water Works and Sewerage Authority vs. Municipality of Libmanan, 97 SCRA 138; A. One Feeds, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 590]

The right to appeal should not be lightly disregarded by a stringent application of the rules of procedure especially
where the appeal is on its face meritorious and the interests of substantial justice would be served by permitting the
appeal [Pacific Overseas Corporation vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 122 citing SIguenza vs. C.A.]. The rules of
procedure should not be applied in a very rigid technical sense. The rules of procedure is used only to help secure
and not override substantial justice [Gregorio vs. Courtof Appeals 72 SCRA 1201]. Delay of four (4) days in the
filing of a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file record on appeal can be excused on the basis of
equity [Ramos vs. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 396].
However, it should be underscored that, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by
law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as legally required has the effect of
rendering final and executory judgment of the court below and deprives the appellate jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal [Ceniza vs. C.A., 218 SCRA 390]. Once final, the decision cannot be altered or modified even by the court
which rendered the same [Mendiola vs CSC 221 SCRA 295]thereby constituting a bar to any relitigation of the
same issues in any proceeding under the principle of res adjudicata [Rosete vs. Court of Appeals 264 SCRA
174]. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental consideration of public policy and sound
practice that at a risk of occasional error, the judgment of the courts must become final at some definite time fixed
by law [GO, Ernesto, CSC Resolution No. 03-0844 dated August 6, 2003].

This Court has, on several occasions, ruled that the emerging trend in our
jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the
determination and just determination of his cause free from the constraints of
technicalities.[23] However, failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period
is not a mere technicality but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders
the judgment final and executory.[24] In addition, the liberal application of rules of
procedure for perfecting appeals is still the exception, and not the rule; and it is
only allowed in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.
[25]
This exceptional situation does not obtain in this case as in fact, both the rulings
of the CSC and CA are supported by evidence on record. While the petitioner
argues that she was denied the opportunity to fully present her defenses, she was
able to give her answer to the charges, and even moved for a reconsideration of the
decision of the CSC-NCR. Her arguments and defenses were already reviewed and

considered by the agency when it discussed its rulings. As held by this Court in the
case of Autencio v. Manara,[26] the essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Furthermore, the counsel's
actions and mistakes on procedural matters bind the client. [27] Where the party has
the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.[28]
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the instant petition for review
on certiorari is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

(On Leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C AT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

On official leave per Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and
Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 52-63.
[2]
Id. at 69-70.
[3]
Id. at 21.
[4]
Id. at 21-22.
[5]
Id. at 18-22.
[6]
Id. at 22.
[7]
Id. at 31-33.
[8]
Id. at 34-37.
[9]
Id. at 36.
[10]
Id. at 41.
[11]
Supra note 1.
[12]
Rollo, p. 62.
[13]
Supra note 2.
[14]
Rollo, p. 7.
[15]
Id. at 14.
[16]
Id. at 111.
[17]
Id. at 109.
[18]
Id. at 71.
[19]
Id. at 73.
[20]
RULES OF COURT,
Rule
45
Section
1.
Section 1. Filing of petition with
Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must
be distinctly set forth.

[21]
[22]
[23]

Rollo, p. 36.
Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 332.
Pacific Union Insurance Company v. Concepts & Systems Development, Inc., G.R. No. 183528, February

23, 2011.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Ruiz v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 166386, January 27, 2009, 577 SCRA 29, 43.
Id. at 45.
489 Phil 752 (2005).
Id. at 754.
Id. at 760-761.