ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245433. October 9, 2019.]
HANSTON COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.STRATEGIC GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CONTACT CENTER CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 October 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245433 — HANSTON COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. STRATEGIC GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CONTACT CENTER CORPORATION
The Court resolves to DENY petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 10, 2019 for failure to adduce new or substantial arguments as to warrant a modification, nay, reversal of the Resolution dated June 10, 2019. DaIAcC
Records show that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had been very lenient with petitioner in the filing of its appeal memorandum. By Order dated April 21, 2016, the RTC directed petitioner's counsel to file petitioner's appeal memorandum within fifteen (15) days from notice. On May 11, 2016, petitioner's counsel received the aforesaid order, hence, he had until May 26, 2016 within which to comply therewith. Petitioner, however, failed to comply. Consequently, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's appeal, which was set for hearing on September 7, 2016. During the hearing, neither of the parties appeared. The RTC, nonetheless, gave petitioner time to comment on respondent's motion to dismiss appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice. Petitioner's counsel received this directive on September 30, 2016. 1 But again, petitioner ignored it. Thus, on November 14, 2016, the RTC dismissed petitioner's appeal. Despite the finality of this order of dismissal, petitioner still filed its appeal memorandum, this time, with the explanation that the delay in filing it was due to counsel's health issues. The appeal memorandum was submitted eight (8) months after petitioner received the court's directive to file the same.
Petitioner cannot invoke Tiangco, et al. v. Land Bank2 because in that case Landbank's delay was for five (5) days only. Too, it was able to file its appeal brief within the second extension granted by the Court of Appeals. Here, petitioner filed its appeal memorandum eight (8) months after it received the corresponding court directive. Worse, unlike in Tiangco, petitioner never bothered to file any motion for extension, nay, explained the cause of eight (8) months delay in filing its appeal memorandum.
The so-called health issues of petitioner's counsel do not justify non-compliance with the Rules. Atty. Eugeryl T. Rondario belongs to a law firm, Abesamis Rondario Lawyers. Atty. Rondario could have easily assigned another lawyer in the firm to handle the case in the meantime. But he did not. Also, even assuming that counsel could not work for long hours, still, he could have filed a motion for extension of time, which certainly does not take too long to prepare.
True, the rigid application of the rules of court may be suspended, but this is only done when there is a meritorious ground for its suspension. The Rules cannot be suspended in order to accommodate a party's flagrant disregard of the same, as in this case. SICDAa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 70.
2. 646 Phil. 554 (2010).