FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242131. January 7, 2019.]
NANCY RUMOHR, MARRIED TO RAYMUND JOHNSON, petitioner,vs. ABDULASIS M. SANI AND GEMMA B. SANI, respondents.
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. 242131 Nancy Rumohr, married to Raymund Johnson v. Abdulasis M. Sani and Gemma B. Sani
Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the petition is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
As may be recalled, petitioner belatedly filed the appellee's brief required of her by the CA. For this reason, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. 1 In resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration therefrom, the CA stated, thus:
For the Court to even reconsider its previous dismissal of this appeal, there must be a cogent basis for doing so. The record of this case, however, will bear that the [petitioner] never adequately explained the late filing of [her] brief. The 45 days provided by the law is more than enough time for the [petitioner] to file a well-written and well-researched brief. In this case, no valid reason was advanced to justify why it took [her] 41 days, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period, to file [the] brief.
Jurisprudence is replete with reminders that procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Thus, absent a sufficient excuse for x x x [petitioner's] non-compliance with the Rules, the dismissal of [her] appeal must be sustained herein. It must be borne in mind that except for the most compelling grounds, procedural rules must be strictly complied with to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. Without a valid explanation, the Court cannot be expected to be liberal or indulgent, as in this case. 2
In the present petition, petitioner again proceeded to discuss her substantial arguments without addressing the procedural blunder she committed before the appellate court. It is only towards the end of the discussion that she implores the Court to brush aside technicalities since according to her, the issues involved in this case are novel and would enrich jurisprudence.
The Court is not inclined to depart from the ruling of the CA.
In Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza, 3 the Court held as follows:
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-compliance with the rules and must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of substantive justice. Daikoku urges a less rigid application of procedural rules to give way [to] the resolution of the case on its merits. The desired leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. The appellate court saw no compelling need meriting the relaxation of the rules. Neither does the Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed October 27, 2017 4 and August 1, 2018 5 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 06242.
Petitioner's counsel is directed to submit (1) the date of issuance of her MCLE Compliance VI; and (2) her contact details, i.e., telephone/cellphone number, and/or email address, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007, within five days from notice.
Further, petitioner or her authorized representative may claim from the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division her excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0225555-SC-EP dated October 11, 2018.
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. Rule 50. Dismissal of Appeal.
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
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.
2.Rollo, pp. 141-142.
3. 606 Phil. 796, 803-804 (2009).
4.Rollo, pp. 128-129; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
5.Id. at 140-142.