FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215834. March 23, 2015.]
REYNALDO PORQUE, petitioner,vs. LEONARDO C. PORQUE and JESUS PORQUE, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE OTHER HEIRS OF THE LATE FILOMENA C. PORQUE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 23, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215834 (Reynaldo Porque v. Leonardo C. Porque and Jesus Porque, for themselves and in representation of the other heirs of the late Filomena C. Porque). — The petitioner's first and second motions for extension totaling sixty (60) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari are GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The motion of Atty. Mehelinda A. Penetrante and Atty. Gina C. Gualingco-Gomez of Ilarde Penetrante and Associates, to withdraw as counsel of the petitioner, with conformity, petitioner having opted to terminate their services and praying that they be relieved of any obligations and responsibilities relative to this case is GRANTED.
The petitioner is hereby DIRECTED:
(1) to FURNISH the Court of the complete name and address of his new counsel, and the latter to FILE an ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, both within ten (10) days from notice hereof; and
(2) to COMPLY within five (5) days from notice hereof with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007 re: statement of contact details (e.g., telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number or e-mail address) of parties or their counsels in all papers and pleadings filed with the Supreme Court.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the October 18, 2013 Decision 1 and October 28, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 06912 for failure of Reynaldo Porque (petitioner) to show any reversible error committed by the CA in dismissing his petition.
As correctly ruled by the CA, no error or grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in dismissing the petition for relief [DARAB Case No. VI-3520-IL-06] from the judgment of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Iloilo in DARAB Case No. VI-3256-IL-05. Records are bereft of any ground, such as fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence or similar supervening cause, that would justify petitioner's failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from the PARAD's decision to warrant relief therefrom. While the petitioner attributed the loss of the remedy of appeal to the fault of his former counsel who purportedly failed to inform him of the receipt of the PARAD's decision, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to his own negligence in not ensuring such timely filing despite his own receipt of a copy of the said decision. As petitioner was at fault and not entirely blameless, there is no reason to overturn well-settled jurisprudence or to interpret the rules liberally in his favor. 3
The Court of Appeals is DELETED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. HTcADC
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 66-71. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
2.Id. at 62-64. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3. See GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Judge Principe, 511 Phil. 176, 185-186 (2005); citation omitted.