FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242002. January 7, 2019.]
NORMA G. APILAN AND ULDARICO L. IMPERIAL, petitioners,vs. ESMERALDO TOMAS, ELVIE A. FLORES, VILLAMOR W. TAMPON, SR., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242002 (Norma G. Apilan and Uldarico L. Imperial v. Esmeraldo Tomas, Elvie A. Flores, Villamor W. Tampon, Sr., et al.). — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in noting without action and in effect, dismissing the petition for relief of judgment of petitioners on the ground that the CA had no jurisdiction.
Section 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court provides that "[w]hen a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course." In case the petition is filed on the ground of excusable negligence, the negligence must be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against" to set aside a judgment through a petition for relief. This is to prevent parties from "reviv[ing] the right to appeal [already] lost through inexcusable negligence." 1 While petitioners did not expressly mention any of the grounds under Section 2, Rule 38, their allegation that they lost contact with their counsel because the former changed their numbers while their counsel stopped using his Globe phone line, and that petitioner Imperial went to Manila for work while petitioner Apilan became a housewife is tantamount to an allegation of their and/or their counsel's negligence. However, petitioners' allegations do not qualify as excusable negligence as they could have prevented losing contact with their counsel during the pendency of their petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated May 11, 2018 and Resolution dated August 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07269-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Madarang v. Morales, G.R. No. 199283, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 480, 494. Citation omitted.