FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242415. February 18, 2019.]
CSL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (FORMERLY JRD TRADING) AND CESAR S. LACUNA, petitioners,vs. JONATHAN N. LUPANGCO, NEURIDEN P. ABE, ENRICO C. RANDO, NOEL G. ESPINOSA, WILBERTO JIMENEZ QUEVEDO, MICHAEL LUJO, JOVAN MOTA, ROMMEL ORANTES, AMADO ALMOJUELA, RONALD PEREZ, JERALT ALMOJUELA, JEROME ATEGA, ROLLY MAHINAY, ARNILO ABLITER AND CESARIO PAMIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 18, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242415 — CSL Construction Corporation (formerly JRD Trading) and Cesar S. Lacuna, petitioners, vs. Jonathan N. Lupangco, Neuriden P. Abe, Enrico C. Rando, Noel G. Espinosa, Wilberto Jimenez Quevedo, Michael Lujo, Jovan Mota, Rommel Orantes, Amado Almojuela, Ronald Perez, Jeralt Almojuela, Jerome Atega, Rolly Mahinay, Arnilo Abliter and Cesario Pamin, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the May 17, 2018 Decision and October 2, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143714, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Section 223 of the Labor Code clearly states that decisions of the Labor Arbiter shall become final and executory unless appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) within 10 days from receipt of the decision. When petitioners received a copy of the Labor Arbiter's Decision on April 15, 2015, they only had until April 27, 2015 (April 25, 2015 falling on a Saturday) within which to perfect an appeal. Petitioners, however, failed to file an appeal within the said period and instead moved for an extension of 10 days reckoned from April 27, 2015. Before the expiration of the extension sought, petitioners filed, on May 6, 2015, a second motion for extension seeking an additional period of five days within which to file an appeal. Petitioners claimed that they needed additional time to process and secure the requirements for the surety bond.
Section 1, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure expressly provides that no motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed. Despite this express provision, petitioners filed for an extension. They even assumed that their first motion would be granted such that they filed another motion for extension. It has been held that litigants should not presume that courts would grant their motion for extension of time to file the required pleading or that they would be granted the length of time they prayed for. 1
Moreover, petitioners' case does not merit the liberal application of the rules on appeals. Petitioners claim that it was the gross negligence of their former counsel that caused the late filing of their appeal. A reading of the records, however, shows that they were not represented by a counsel in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and that the motions for extension that they filed were signed by petitioner Cesar S. Lacuna. We thus concur with the observation and conclusion of the NLRC that the gross negligence of the alleged counsel was unsupported by any basis. We agree, that in opting to pursue their case without a counsel, petitioners were bound by the rules on procedure and that their ignorance cannot excuse them from complying therewith.
Indeed, petitioners' appeal was deemed not perfected. The NLRC was thus correct in dismissing the same. The Court had the occasion to rule that deviation from the rules should not be tolerated since the observance of these rules cannot be left to the whims and caprices of the parties. 2 It must be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 3
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed May 17, 2018 Decision and October 2, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143714.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Ramos v. Atty. Dajoyag, Jr., 428 Phil. 267, 278 (2002).
2.LTS Philippines Corp. v. Maliwat, 489 Phil. 230, 234 (2005).
3.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).