SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221746. July 11, 2016.]
ROGELIO I. RAYALA, petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, COURT OF APPEALS 13TH DIVISION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 July 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221746 (ROGELIO I. RAYALA, petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, COURT OF APPEALS 13TH DIVISION, respondents.) — We decide the motion for reconsideration 1 filed by petitioner Rogelio I. Rayala, challenging the April 6, 2016 resolution of this Court which denied his petition for review on certiorari2 for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the February 24, 2015 3 and December 11, 2015 4 resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138498.
The Antecedent Facts
On June 9, 2014, the Office of the President (OP) denied the petitioner's appeal assailing the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)'s decision 5 which disallowed the payment of the petitioner's backwages and benefits amounting to P2,506,122.27. 6 The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the OP denied the motion in a resolution dated November 18, 2014. 7
The petitioner received the OP's November 18, 2014 resolution on December 5, 2014. Thus, he had fifteen (15) days or until December 20, 2014 (Saturday) to file his petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. On December 22, 2014 (Monday), the petitioner filed his first motion for extension of time to file his petition for review before the CA.
In its January 30, 2015 resolution, the CA granted the petitioner's motion and allowed him to file his petition for review until January 4, 2015, or fifteen (15) days after December 20, 2015. The petitioner received the January 30, 2015 resolution on February 11, 2015.
On February 11, 2015, the petitioner filed his second motion for extension of time with motion to admit petition for review before the CA. In a resolution dated February 24, 2015, the CA denied the motion for having been filed out of time. It held that the motion was belatedly filed; it was filed on February 11, 2015 or thirty-eight (38) days beyond the extended time granted under the petitioner's first motion for extension. It also ruled that the petitioner failed to cite compelling reasons to support his motion for another extension of the period to file his petition for review.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied his motion in a resolution dated December 11, 2015. Following the denial, he filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Court on January 18, 2016. The Court denied the petition in a Resolution dated April 6, 2016 for lack of merit.
On May 30, 2016, the petitioner filed the present motion for reconsideration, 8 praying that his petition for review on certiorari be given due course so that his claim for the payment of his backwages and benefits could be decided on its merits. In his motion, the petitioner argues that the CA gravely abused its discretion when it: 1) granted an extension of only fifteen (15) days, and not thirty (30) days, to file his appeal; and 2) denied his second motion for extension which ultimately resulted to the denial of his appeal.
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly denied the petitioner's second motion for extension with motion to admit for being filed out of time. HSAcaE
The Court's Ruling
We deny the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Under Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, an appeal to the CA from a quasi-judicial agency shall be taken within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution. The CA may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days and no further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason.
The CA, therefore, correctly granted an extension of only fifteen (15) days, and not thirty (30) days, for the petitioner to file his appeal.
In addition, while a party is allowed to file a motion for extension of time, the grant of such motion is at the CA's discretion, and by jurisprudence, only on the basis of reasons it finds meritorious. 9 Thus, the CA correctly denied the petitioner's second motion for extension with motion to admit petition for review, considering that the petitioner's "holiday season" excuse could not be deemed as a compelling reason to justify the requested additional extended period. Besides, when the motion was filed on February 11, 2015, the fifteen-day extension period had already lapsed: there was no more period to extend. 10 Accordingly, the CA could not have admitted his petition for review as it, too, was clearly filed out of time.
Notably, it took the petitioner thirty-eight (38) days after the last day of the extension period to file his second motion for extension and his petition for review. Such delay, coupled with the lack of any compelling reason for the late filing, shows the petitioner's apparent disregard of the rules of procedure.
We further note that the petitioner must have been aware that more than fifteen (15) days had lapsed from December 20, 2014 (the last day of filing his appeal) and the CA had not yet resolved his first motion for extension of time. Faced with this apparent inaction, the petitioner chose to wait until he received a copy of the CA's resolution before filing his second motion together with his petition for review. Thus, the petitioner obviously did not seriously take the terms of the rules for extension of time into account; he failed to note that even if his second motion had been granted, he would have had only an additional fifteen (15) days of grace period, counted from the end of the first extended period. While we do not approve of the CA's late action on his motion, the petitioner cannot be allowed to use the CA's delay in acting on his motion, as an excuse to also delay the filing of his petition for review. 11
We stress that the right to appeal is a statutory right, not a natural or a constitutional right. The party who intends to appeal must comply with the procedures and rules governing appeals; otherwise, the right of appeal may be lost. 12 Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, his appeal was not denied on a mere technicality as the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional; the failure to perfect that appeal renders the assailed resolutions final and executory. 13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Rogelio I. Rayala. The February 24, 2015 and December 11, 2015 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138498 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." HESIcT
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
* Mendoza, J., on official leave.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 260-271.
2. Id. at 11-34.
3. Id. at 41-43.
4. Id. at 46-47.
5. Id. at 91-93.
6. Id. at 126-130.
7. Id. at 151.
8. Id. at 260-271.
9. See Go v. BPI Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 199354, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 125, 131.
10. See Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191215, February 3, 2014, 715 SCRA 153, 167.
11. See Go v. BPI Finance Corporation, supra note 9, at 131-132.
12. Lebin v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 35, 44.
13. Id., supra note 11, at 132.