FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215977. March 25, 2015.]
ESTATE OF TERESITA ROBLES A.K.A. "ROSALINDA B. ROBLES,"*REPRESENTED BY HER SURVIVING SPOUSE RODOLFO M. MARIANO, petitioner, vs.ESTATE OF THE LATE FELISA TAMIO DE BUENAVENTURA, REPRESENTED BY RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RHEA A. BIHIS, AND REGINA A. BIHIS, IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 25, 2015which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215977 (Estate of Teresita Robles a.k.a. "Rosalinda B. Robles," represented by her surviving spouse Rodolfo M. Mariano v. Estate of the late Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, represented by Resurreccion A. Bihis, Rhea A. Bihis, and Regina A. Bihis, in their personal capacities). — The petitioner's 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 a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 1, 2014 and November 19, 2014 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 96697 for failure of Teresita Robles (petitioner) to show any reversible error committed by the CA in denying her motion for extension to file motion for reconsideration.
As correctly ruled by the CA in its November 19, 2014 Resolution, no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed before it. Settled is the rule that the period to file a motion for reconsideration is not extendible. 2 While the Court, in the interest of equity and justice, sometimes allows a liberal reading of the rules so long as the petitioner is able to prove the existence of cogent reasons to excuse its non-observance, 3 the Court finds no reason to overturn well-settled jurisprudence or to interpret the rules liberally in petitioner's favor. The failure of petitioner's counsel of record to inform the CA of his change of address constitutes inexcusable omission or neglect which is binding on him, 4 especially in this case, where petitioner was himself negligent in failing to take the initiative of periodically keeping in touch and coordinating with said counsel and checking the status of the case in the interim. Litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. 5
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as "Rosalinda B. Mariano" in some parts of the record.
1.Rollo, pp. 58-61 and 71-73, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
2. See V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. v. Municipality of Parañaque, G.R. No. 178431, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 117, 129; citations omitted.
3.Id. at 130; citation omitted.
4. See Karen and Kristy Fishing Industry v. CA (5th Div.), 562 Phil. 236, 243 (2007).
5. See id. at 244; citation omitted.