SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242203. November 5, 2018.]
POLANNE TRANSPORT DRIVERS EMPLOYEES UNION-FSM, ANTONIO PRADO, AND ROGELIO ABSULO, petitioners, vs.BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ANTONIO A. ROMANO, ALFREDO VALERIO, ANTONIO ASILO, VINCENT RAMOS, AND JONATHAN DEGUIT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242203 (Polanne Transport Drivers Employees Union-FSM, Antonio Prado, and Rogelio Absulo v. Bureau of Labor Relations, Antonio A. Romano, Alfredo Valerio, Antonio Asilo, Vincent Ramos, and Jonathan Deguit)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant petition 1 for being filed out of time.
Based on Section 2, 2 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Polanne Transport Drivers Employees Union-FSM, Antonio Prado, and Rogelio Absulo (petitioners) had fifteen (15) days from receipt of the August 6, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying their Very Respectful Motion for Reconsideration 4 dated June 11, 2018 to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. Records reveal that petitioners received the CA's Resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on August 15, 2018, 5 and thus, had fifteen (15) days from such receipt, or until August 30, 2018, to file the instant petition 6 before the Court. Instead, they filed the instant petition only on October 15, 2018, which was way beyond the 15-day reglementary period, rendering the petition beyond the Court's appellate review. 7 CAIHTE
In any event, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in not giving due course to the petition for certiorari for being procedurally defective.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-10.
2. Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. x x x
3.Rollo, pp. 20-23. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
4.Id. at 15-17.
5. See id. at 4.
6. It appears that while the instant petition was denominated as a petition for certiorari, the same failed to attribute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA and merely raised questions of law. Thus, by its very nature, it is considered a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
7. See People v. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018.