SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241281. February 18, 2019.]
CDR. WILFRED A. BURGOS, petitioner,vs. SPECIAL PANEL, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND THE FIELD INVESTIGATION BUREAU, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN-MOLEO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241281 (CDR. Wilfred A. Burgos v. Special Panel, Office of the Ombudsman, and the Field Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman-MOLEO)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 22, 2018 2 and August 7, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153917 for failure of petitioner CDR. Wilfred A. Burgos (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying his second motion for extension 4 of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition.
As correctly ruled by the CA, Section 4, 5 Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that a second motion for extension of time to file a petition can only be granted based on the "most compelling reason." 6 While a party is allowed to file a motion for extension of time, the grant of such motion is within the CA's discretion, and by jurisprudence, only on the basis of reasons it finds meritorious. 7 Thus, the CA's denial of petitioner's second motion for extension was proper, considering that "heavy workload" could not be deemed as compelling reason to justify the requested additional extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file his petition. 8 Well-settled is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and the party who intends to appeal must comply with the rules and procedures governing appeals; otherwise, the right to appeal may be lost. 9
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
2.Id. at 19-22. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 24-25.
4. See Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review Under Rule 43 dated January 4, 2018; id. at 38-40.
5. Section 4. Period of appeal. — x x x Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
6. See rollo, p. 20.
7.Go v. BPI Finance Corporation, 712 Phil. 579, 585 (2013).
8. See Adtel, Inc. v. Valdez, G.R. No. 189942, August 9, 2017, 836 SCRA 57, 68. See also rollo, p. 21.
9. See Spouses Lebin v. Mirasol, 672 Phil. 477, 494 (2011).