SECOND DIVISION
[UDK 16350. January 16, 2019.]
PO3 MARLON D. BALLAD, petitioner,vs. JESUS L. SAQUING, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"UDK 16350 (PO3 Marlon D. Ballad v. Jesus L. Saquing)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner PO3 Marlon D. Ballad (petitioner) to pay the corresponding docket and lawful fees required under Sections 3 2 and 5 3 of Rule 45, in relation to Section 5 (c) 4 of Rule 56, of the Rules of Court. Settled is the rule that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege; hence, a party who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is invariably lost, 5 as in this case.
In any event, settled is the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), are conclusive on this Court when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. 6 In this case, the administrative agencies, as well as the CA, uniformly found that there was substantial evidence that petitioner brought his service firearm in a social gathering without any authority to do so, aimed it at respondent Jesus L. Saquing (respondent), and discharged it. 7 As the CA correctly concluded, these acts, taken together, constitute Grave Misconduct, which is punishable by dismissal from service. 8 It likewise correctly held that respondent's execution of an affidavit of desistance did not exonerate petitioner's administrative liability. 9
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-16.
2. Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition[.] (Emphasis supplied)
3. Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphases supplied)
4. Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs[.]
5.NSC Holdings (Philippines), Inc. v. Trust International Paper Corporation, G.R. No. 193069, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 424, 432, citing Pascual v. Robles, 622 Phil. 804, 811-812 (2009).
6. See Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, 665 Phil. 60, 77-78 (2011).
7. See rollo, p. 24.
8. See Ganzon v. Arlos, 720 Phil. 104, 118-119 (2013). See also rollo, p. 26.
9. See Encinas v. Agustin, Jr., 709 Phil. 236, 262 (2013).