THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224568. March 29, 2017.]
JUANITO R. FERNANDEZ, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES NARCISO and MARILYN TORIBIO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224568 — JUANITO R. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. SPOUSES NARCISO and MARILYN TORIBIO, Respondents. — Petitioner's Ex-Parte Manifestation dated July 26, 2016 stating that the petition for review on certiorari was filed and served upon respondents through registered mail on July 25, 2016 is NOTED.
Considering that in the Resolution dated July 27, 2016, the Court declared this case closed and terminated, the Court resolves to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution dated July 24, 2015 and May 10, 2016, respectively, of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CV No. 99503. cSEDTC
For resolution is the petitioner's motion for reconsideration praying that his petition for review on certiorari be admitted and given due course. He pleads that the Court exercise its inherent power to suspend its own rules in the higher interest of substantial justice. He explains that his previous handling lawyer had to take a leave of absence from the law firm due to his appointment as the Secretary of Justice.
It appears that the petitioner's counsel filed two motions for extension of the time for him to file the petition for review on certiorari. The Court granted him an extension of 30 days. However, he requested a second extension of 20 days. The Court denied his request for the second extension with finality and considered the appeal closed and terminated.
The plea of the petitioner cannot be granted.
Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which allowed only a maximum extension of 30 days within which to file the petition, provides:
Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition. (1a, 5a)
Section 2 of Rule 45 expressly limits to 30 days the extension of the period within which to file the petition for review on certiorari. With the petitioner having been afforded the full 30-day extension, it would definitely be prejudicial to the administration of justice to grant him another extension, or even to accommodate his plea at all. AIDSTE
The petitioner is reminded that his bare invocation of the higher interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will automatically impel this Court to suspend the procedural rules. Otherwise, he will trivialize his non-observance of them. Moreover, our liberality in his favor may result in prejudice to his adverse party's substantive rights. Worthy to emphasize is that the procedural rules have to be followed in order to ensure the speedy and smooth administration of justice in this jurisdiction. A relaxation of the rules will be allowed only for the most persuasive of reasons, and only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 1
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioner's motion for reconsideration; and DIRECTS that entry of judgment be immediately made.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Magsino v. De Ocampo, G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014, 733 SCRA 202, 219.