FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243847. June 19, 2019.]
HEIRS OF DATU OSMEÑA MAMADRA, NAMELY RUHAIDA M. MAMADRA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION 12, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 19, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243847 (Heirs of Datu Osmeña Mamadra, namely Ruhaida M. Mamadra, et al. v. Department of Public Works and Highways, Region 12, rep. by its Regional Director, et al.). — After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in the assailed resolutions, which dismissed herein petitioners' petition for certiorari under Rule 65 brought before it on the ground of fatal defects.
As correctly found by the CA, and as our jurisprudence itself is replete with, an appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege, 1 and procedural requirements including the timely filing of the said appeal are mandatory for its perfection. 2 Further, the requirements under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court are likewise compulsory, and failure to comply thereto shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. HTcADC
In the present case, the multiple defects as observed by the CA included: (1) the non-appending of the copy of the assailed Order to the petition; (2) the non-indication of the date of receipt of the assailed Order and the date of the filing of the MR; and (3) the failure of petitioner Bai Zulkaira M. Mamadra to show competent evidence of his identity as affiant upon signing of the Verification and Certification for Non-Forum Shopping. These procedural lapses cannot be countenanced, and have correctly given rise to just cause for the petition's dismissal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition, is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated June 29, 2018, and the Resolution dated November 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08795-MIN are hereby AFFIRMED.
The Honorable Bansawan Z. Ibrahim, Al Haj, in his capacity as acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIV, Cotabato City, is hereby DELETED as party respondent pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and the petitioners' manifestation with notice of submission, submitting the thereto attached additional original copy of the Petition and praying that the same be admitted, is NOTED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218867, February 17, 2016, 784 SCRA 342.
2.Id.; In relation thereto, Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.