SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246528. July 8, 2019.]
HEIRS OF BRIGIDA DELA MINES, NAMELY: MAMERTA A. PUNO, EDUARDO AGA, MARCOS AGA, GERTRUDES A. PAJARILLAGA, FELISA A. MANLUTAC, LEONILA A. BALMES, AND APOLONIA AGUILAR, REPRESENTED BY AND FOR HIMSELF, DEMETRIO D. AGA, petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF FRANCISCA DELA MINES, REPRESENTED BY LOURDES M. DELA PENA, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246528 (Heirs of Brigida dela Mines, namely: Mamerta A. Puno, Eduardo Aga, Marcos Aga, Gertrudes A. Pajarillaga, Felisa A. Manlutac, Leonila A. Balmes, and Apolonia Aguilar, represented by and for himself, Demetrio D. Aga v. Heirs of Francisca Dela Mines, represented by Lourdes M. Dela Pena, and the Registry of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 6, 2018 Decision 2 and the April 1, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108854 for failure of petitioners Heirs of Brigida dela Mines, namely: Mamerta A. Puno, Eduardo Aga, Marcos Aga, Gertrudes A. Pajarillaga, Felisa A. Manlutac, Leonila A. Balmes, and Apolonia Aguilar, represented by and for himself, Demetrio D. Aga (petitioners), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their appeal 4 for being a wrong remedy. HTcADC
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners availed of a wrong mode of appeal from the March 6, 2017 Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, which was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 6 As such, the proper remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 42 7 of the Rules of Court (Rules), instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 8 of the same Rules. It is settled that the right to appeal is not a natural or inherent right but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Corollarily, its requirements must be strictly complied with. 9 Besides, the circumstances of the case do not warrant a liberal application of the rules. 10 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-32.
2.Id. at 36-44. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
3.Id. at 46-47.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. The said RTC Decision affirmed the MTC Decision; not attached to the rollo.
6. See rollo, p. 42.
7. Section 1. How Appeal Taken; Time for Filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
8. Section 2. Modes of Appeal. —
(a) Ordinary Appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
9. See Yao v. CA, 398 Phil. 86, 100 (2000).
10. The plea for liberality is unworthy of any sympathy from the Court. We have always looked at appeal as not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. As the patties invoking the privilege, the petitioners should have faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court. Their failure to do so forfeited their privilege to appeal. Indeed, any liberality in the application of the rules of procedure may be properly invoked only in cases of some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but definitely not in cases like now where a liberal application would directly subvert the essence of the proceedings or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the petitioners did not give any good reason or cause that could warrant the relaxation of the rules in their favor. Their bare plea for substantial justice was not enough ground to suspend the rules. Acceding to their plea would conceal their shortcomings in procedure, and thereby belittle the lofty objectives of instituting rules of procedure. We cannot allow that to happen, for doing so would sacrifice the smooth administration of justice guaranteed to every litigant. We have allowed exceptions only for the most persuasive of reasons, like relieving the litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. (Heirs of Garcia I v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, 764 Phil. 408, 416-417 [2015].)