Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
prescribed period. Although his counsel failed to give the reason for
the delay, we are inclined to give due course to his appeal due to the
unique and peculiar facts of the case and the serious question of law
it poses. In the now almost trite but still good principle, technicality,
when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its
great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration.
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
577
577
578
579
580
Vice-President/Chief
Operating
Officer
of
Phinma-Dee
581
582
583
Rollo, p. 18.
584
584
technicalities
with impairment of the sacred principles of
7
justice. It should be borne in mind that the real purpose
behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to forestall
or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of
justice. Thus, we have ruled that delay in the filing of a
notice of appeal does not justify the dismissal of the appeal
where the circumstances of the case show that there is no
intent to delay the administration
of justice on the part of
8
appellants counsel,
or when there are no substantial
9
rights affected, or when appellants counsel committed a
mistake in the computation of the period of10appeal, an error
not attributable to negligence or bad faith.
In the instant case, respondent filed his notice of appeal
two (2) days later than the prescribed period. Although his
counsel failed to give the reason for the delay, we are
inclined to give due course to his appeal due to the unique
and peculiar facts of the case and the serious question of
law it poses. In the now almost trite but still good principle,
technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to
justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy,
11
deserves scant consideration.
Petitioner likewise contends that the appellate court
erred in ruling that respondents cause of action has not
prescribed since delegates to the Warsaw Convention
clearly intended the two (2)-year limitation incorporated in
Art. 29 as an ab_______________
Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Espiritu, No. L-35401, 20
200; American Home Assurance Company v. Court of Appeals, No. L45026, 12 November 1981, 109 SCRA 180.
9
SCRA 259.
10
Ibid.
11
See Note 7.
585
585
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
March 1993, 219 SCRA 520; Luna v. Northwestern Airways, G.R. Nos.
100374-75, 27 November 1992, 216 SCRA 107.
18
Ibid.
586
586
587
588
588
589
589