FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241505. January 7, 2019.]
CDR. JOSELITO B. QUINTAS, petitioner,vs. FIELD INVESTIGATION BUREAU [FIB], OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES [MOLEO], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241505 — Cdr. Joselito B. Quintas, Petitioner, vs. Field Investigation Bureau [FIB], Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices [MOLEO], Respondent.
The Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari for late filing. Petitioner alleged that on August 23, 2018, he received the assailed Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution dated August 10, 2018. He thus sought an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on September 7, 2018 within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
A perusal of aforesaid August 10, 2018 Resolution, however, reveals that it denied petitioner's Compliance with Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration. This Resolution was issued after the CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its June 8, 2018 Resolution. Under Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner should have reckoned his request for a thirty (30)-day extension from the expiration of the original fifteen (15)-day period for filing the Petition from the date he received a copy of the June 8, 2018 Resolution denying his first Motion for Reconsideration and not from his receipt of the August 10, 2018 Resolution.
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Picop Resources, Inc., 1 the Court explained why the period to appeal should not be reckoned from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration, viz.:
To rule that finality of judgment shall be reckoned from the receipt of the resolution or order denying the second motion for reconsideration would result to an absurd situation whereby courts will be obliged to issue orders or resolutions denying what is a prohibited motion in the first place, in order that the period for the finality of judgments shall run, thereby, prolonging the disposition of cases. Moreover, such a ruling would allow a party to forestall the running of the period of finality of judgments by virtue of filing a prohibited pleading; such a situation is not only illogical but also unjust to the winning party.
The same principle is likewise applicable by analogy in the determination of the correct period to appeal. Reckoning the period from the denial of the second motion for reconsideration will result in the same absurd situation where the courts will be obliged to issue orders or resolutions denying a prohibited pleading in the first place. 2
A fortiori, here, the Court cannot allow petitioner to reckon his request for extension from the expiration of the fifteen (15)-day period from the date of his receipt of the August 10, 2018 Resolution denying his Compliance with Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Besides, this Court has carefully perused the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and found the same to be outrightly dismissible for the following reasons:
(1) it was filed out of time;
(2) it lacks verified statements as to the dates when petitioner:
a. received a copy of the assailed January 17, 2018 Resolution (Section 4 [b], Rule 45 of the Rules of Court);
b. filed his Motion for Reconsideration (Section 4 [b], Rule 45 of the Rules of Court);
c. received a copy of the assailed June 8, 2018 Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration (Section 4 [b], Rule 45 of the Rules of Court).
(3) it lacks registry receipts for copies thereof sent to the CA and the adverse party (Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court);
(4) it lacks affidavit of service of copies thereof furnished to the CA and the adverse party (Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court); and,
(5) it is not accompanied by material portions of the record (i.e., Consolidated Resolution and Decision dated July 19, 2017, petition filed with the CA, Motion for Reconsideration, etc.) as would support the allegations contained therein (Section 4 [d], Rule 45 of the Rules of Court).
It bears to stress that "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost." 3
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, as well as his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 588 Phil. 136 (2008).
2. Id. at 152.
3. Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95, 100-101 (1998).