SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249643. December 11, 2019.]
JOSE ABALON GUARNES, ANTOINETTE MA. GUARNES-CARDASTO, GIMELDA PUCHE ROMERO, AND ANTONIO P. PUCHE, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF JOSE ABALON GUARNES AND ANTOINETTE MA. GUARNES-CARDASTO, petitioners, vs.HONORABLE IGNACIO N. ALMODOVAR, JR., MERCEDEZ IMPERIAL, AND GLORIA G. BALDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 December 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249643 (Jose Abalon Guarnes, Antoinette Ma. Guarnes-Cardasto, Gimelda Puche Romero, and Antonio P. Puche, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of Jose Abalon Guarnes and Antoinette Ma. Guarnes-Cardasto v. Honorable Ignacio N. Almodovar, Jr., Mercedez Imperial, and Gloria G. Baldo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being filed out time. Records reveal that petitioners Jose Abalon Guarnes, Antoinette Ma. Guarnes-Cardasto, Gimelda Puche Romero, and Antonio P. Puche, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of Jose Abalon Guarnes and Antoinette Ma. Guarnes-Cardasto (petitioners), were granted an inextendible period of thirty (30) days from September 28, 2019, or until October 28, 2019 within which to file their petition for review. However, petitioners filed the instant petition belatedly on October 30, 2019.
In any event, petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying their petition for being: (a) the wrong mode of appeal; and (b) filed out of time. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners incorrectly availed of the remedy of certiorari as the proper remedy from an order of dismissal, which is a final order, is simply to appeal such order. 2 Further, the CA is also correct in holding that assuming arguendo that certiorari is the proper remedy, petitioners failed to file the same within the reglementary period of 60 days from notice of the adverse order, considering that they received a copy of the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on March 1, 2018, and as such, they only had until April 30, 2018 to file a petition for certiorari; however, they filed such petition only on May 2, 2018, or two (2) days beyond the afore-mentioned reglementary period. 3 It is settled that rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. 4
Further, the Court resolves to: (a)NOTE the formal notice of death with motion for substitution of parties dated October 30, 2019 of counsel for petitioners, stating that one of the petitioners in the instant case, Antonio Puche (Antonio), died on February 10, 2019, as shown in the latter's death certificate; that he is survived by his compulsory heirs, namely, Zenaida Puche, Marianne Romano, Anthony Puche, and Raymond Puche, and praying that the aforesaid heirs be declared as substitute for Antonio; and (b)AWAIT the compliance of petitioners with the Resolution dated November 11, 2019 by paying the lacking amount of P1,530.00, and by submitting a compact disk or transmitting via e-mail a soft copy of the motion for extension to file petition.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-31.
2. See id. at 38. See also Jose v. Javellana, 680 Phil. 10, 19-20 (2012).
3. See id. at 39-40.
4.Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018, 851 SCRA 164, 177.