SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243867. February 18, 2019.]
CELESTINO NOLASCO [DECEASED], AS REPRESENTED BY CARLOS NOLASCO, JOSE NOLASCO [DECEASED], AS REPRESENTED BY JOCELYN N. GUIWAN, CONRADO NOLASCO, AND RUBEN NOLASCO, petitioners,vs. NICOLAS NOLASCO, JR. [DECEASED], AS REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND LOURDES ARCE SALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 February 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243867 (Celestino Nolasco [deceased], as represented by Carlos Nolasco, Jose Nolasco [deceased], as represented by Jocelyn N. Guiwan, Conrado Nolasco, and Ruben Nolasco v. Nicolas Nolasco, Jr. [deceased], as represented by his heirs, and Lourdes Arce Sales)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 15, 2018 2 and November 15, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149776 for failure of petitioners Celestino Nolasco (deceased), as represented by Carlos Nolasco, Jose Nolasco (deceased), as represented by Jocelyn N. Guiwan, Conrado Nolasco (Conrado), and Ruben Nolasco (collectively, petitioners), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in considering their petition for review as abandoned for their failure to comply with its lawful order pursuant to Section 1 (g), 4 Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the extended period of time that petitioners allowed to lapse without any action, or any manifestation to the appellate court is a blatant disregard of the rules of procedure. 5 While rules of procedure may be relaxed in. pursuit of substantial justice, 6 it must only be on the most persuasive of reasons. 7 Absent any plausible explanation for its non-compliance, a party's plain violation of the rules will not be countenanced. 8 Notably, petitioners' stated reason for failing to comply with the CA's May 11, 2017 directive 9 was the absence of Conrado, and yet, after more than (10) months, the jurat they submitted still did not include Conrado's signature. 10 Clearly, this does not qualify as a plausible explanation to relax the rules of procedure. Thus, their petition was correctly dismissed by the CA pursuant to the above-said rule.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-17.
2.Id. at 18-20. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 21-23.
4. Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary steps for the correction or completion of the record within the time limited by the court in its order[.]
5. See rollo, p. 22.
6. See CMTC International Marketing Corporation v. Bhagis International Trading Corporation, 700 Phil. 575, 582 (2012).
7.Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association, 574 Phil. 20, 38 (2008).
8.Id. at 38-39.
9. See rollo, p. 18.
10. See id. at 22.