SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243762. March 18, 2019.]
CONRADO P.E. POTENCIANO, petitioner,vs. MA. YSABEL P. SYLIANTING, MA. REGINA P. GERALDEZ, MA. SUSANA P. CAMPOS, NICANOR P. PADILLA III, IRMA P.E. POTENCIANO, AND MA. VICTORIA P. VERGEL DE DIOS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243762 (Conrado P.E. Potenciano v. Ma. Ysabel P. Sylianting, Ma. Regina P. Geraldez, Ma. Susana P. Campos, Nicanor P. Padilla III, Irma P.E. Potenciano, and Ma. Victoria P. Vergel De Dios)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 27, 2018 2 and December 14, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154908 for failure of petitioner Conrado P.E. Potenciano (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in upholding the assailed Resolutions 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 22 (RTC) denying due course to his appeal for being filed out of time.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the RTC's service of its October 30, 2015 Decision 5 to one of petitioner's counsels constitutes sufficient notice to him, 6 hence, the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period for filing an appeal was properly reckoned on January 20, 2016, or on the date when Akol and Associates duly received a copy of said decision. Clearly, petitioner's notice of appeal 7 filed on March 1, 2016 must be denied due course for being filed out of time. 8
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-19.
2.Id. at 23-25. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3.Id. at 27-28. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
4. Not attached to the rollo but referenced in the March 27, 2018 CA Resolution; see id. at 24.
5.Id.
6. "Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court expressly states that if a party has appeared by counsel, service shall be made upon his counsel or one of them. Considering that there is no question that the petitioners had engaged the services of two counsels, namely: Atty. Angeles and Atty. Pantaleon, notice to either of them was effective notice to the petitioners. Considering that there was no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel shown to have been made, the notice of the decision to either Atty. Angeles and Atty. Pantaleon was, for all purposes, notice to the petitioners. This is because the CA could not be expected to itself ascertain whether the counsel of record had been changed." (See Unsigned Resolution in Lopez v. CA, G.R. Nos. 163959 and 177855, August l, 2018; citations omitted.)
7. Not attached to the rollo but referenced in the CA Resolution; see id. at 24.
8. "It is doctrinally entrenched that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. Moreover, the perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well. The failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court unavoidably renders the judgment final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment." (Albor v. CA, G.R. No. 196598, January 17, 2018; citations omitted.)