SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257129. March 28, 2022.]
KRISTOFFER PATINO1GOZUM, petitioner, vs.SAN LUCAS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, VILMA M. MENDOZA, ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER, INCORPORATED QUEZON CITY, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257129 (Kristoffer Patino Gozum v. San Lucas Association, Incorporated, Vilma M. Mendoza, St. Luke's Medical Center, Incorporated Quezon City, et al.). — The Court NOTES the three (3) additional copies of the Petition for Review on Certiorari2 dated October 25, 2021 in the instant case.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for review outright for having been filed out of time.
Under Section 2, Rule 45 3 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Kristoffer Patino Gozum (petitioner) had fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 4 dated June 29, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP No. 156961 denying his motion for reconsideration, 5 within which to file the instant petition. Records reveal that petitioner received a copy of the CA Resolution on July 14, 2021, thus, he had until July 29, 2021 6 to file the same. However, the Court, in a Resolution 7 dated September 15, 2021, granted petitioner's motion for an extension of time, 8 thereby giving him an extension of thirty (30) days from July 29, 2021 or until August 28, 2021 to file the petition, with a warning that the same shall be the last and no further extension will be given. 9 Thus, the instant petition, having been belatedly filed on October 25, 2021, 10 is already out of time. Accordingly, the assailed CA rulings had already become final, executory, and unappealable.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 'Patiño' in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 21-70.
3.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)
4.Rollo, pp. 76-77. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Bonifacio S. Pascua and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale, concurring.
5.Id. at 92-121.
6. See id. at 20 and 22.
7.Id. at 10.
8.Id. at 3-6.
9.Id. at 10.
10.Id. at 20-21.