FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238152. July 2, 2018.]
RAYMUNDO V. LUCERO, petitioner, vs. FLOWCRETE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PHILIPPINES, INC. AND CLAUDIA R. MINA (GENERAL MANAGER), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 2, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238152 — Raymundo V. Lucero v. Flowcrete Construction Equipment Philippines, Inc. and Claudia R. Mina (General Manager)
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
The Court further resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for: a) late filing; b) failure of petitioner to pay P1,000.00 for the required Sheriff's Trust Fund per A.M. 17-12-09-SC as the amount remitted by petitioner was only P3,530.00; and c) failure of petitioner to attach to the Petition the registry receipts as proof that copies of the Petition were sent to the Court of Appeals (CA) and adverse parties as required by Section 13, 1 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. HTcADC
Since the CA Resolution denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was received by petitioner on March 2, 2018, the due date to file the Petition fell on March 17, 2018. As March 17, 2018 fell on a Saturday, petitioner timely filed his Motion for Time of thirty (30) days to file the Petition on March 19, 2018. However, petitioner is not correct in stating in his Motion for Time that the expiration of the reglementary period to file the Petition was on March 19, 2018, it being March 17, 2018. Thus, he had only until April 16, 2018 to file his Petition before the Court. Petitioner, however, filed said Petition only on April 18, 2018, in violation of Section 2 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner's appeal, therefore, is deemed not perfected.
It must be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. This being so, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where the courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. 2
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari. CAIHTE
Respondents' Manifestation Ad Cautelam (With Leave of Court to File the Instant Pleading) is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 13. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
2.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).