THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228176. April 3, 2017.]
FIDEL SALVADOR, BOYSANG SALVADOR and ROSEMAE SALVADOR VDA. DE ABANES, in their capacity as HEIRS of LIBERATO SALVADOR, petitioners,vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LAZARO EVANGELISTA and EDDIE EVANGELISTA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 3, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 228176 — FIDEL SALVADOR, BOYSANG SALVADOR and ROSEMAE SALVADOR VDA. DE ABANES, in their capacity as HEIRS of LIBERATO SALVADOR, Petitioners v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LAZARO EVANGELISTA and EDDIE EVANGELISTA, Respondents.
The petitioners assailed the adverse decision rendered on October 10, 2012 in favor of the respondents by the Regional Trial Court in General Santos City by petition for certiorari. On September 10, 2015, however, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari due to various defects, 1 namely:
(1) Payment of docket and other legal fee is short by P530.00;
(2) Failure to state the complete names of all the respondents, required under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court;
(3) Pertinent pleadings material portions of the record were not attached to the petition, i.e., copy of the motion for reconsideration of the May 5, 2015 RTC Order;
(4) The Certification and Verification was signed by a certain Rosemae Salvador Vda. De Abanes, one of the heirs of Liberato Salvador, but there is no proof that she is authorized to file the petition and sign the certification and verification in behalf of the other petitioners;
(5) The notarial certificates of the certification and verification and the affidavit of service and mailing by registered mail did not indicate the serial number of the respective notaries public's commission, required under Rule VIII, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 2
On November 11, 2015, the petitioners moved for reconsideration, 3 attaching to their motion two postal money orders for the total amount of P530.00, all dated November 11, 2015. 4 They thereby justified the infirmities of the petition, and explained that Rosemae Salvador-Abanes had been the only petitioner available to sign because her co-heirs/co-owners had been working in Japan and were not available at the time the petition was filed. They appended to the motion a so-called affidavit of non-availability whereby petitioner Fidel Salvador gave the reasons for their inability to sign the petition and the special power of attorney and ratification of the acts of their attorney-in-fact dated November 9, 2015. 5 They noted that the May 5, 2015 order issued by the RTC had been attached to the petition as Annex G; and submitted the certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC (Branch 39) to the effect that serial numbers were not issued to those commissioned as notaries public. 6
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration because the petitioners still did not comply with its resolution. 7 It stated that the docket fees were paid on the last day of the filing of the motion for reconsideration instead of paying the fees outright or upon the receipt of the resolution; that attached as Annex G was not the order dated May 5, 2015; that Fidel Salvador should have executed the special power of attorney when he was in the Philippines in July 2015 to ratify the acts of Rosemae Salvador-Abanes; and that the CA further noted that the special power of attorney did not include Rey Salvador, one of the petitioners.
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
The Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction. The noted defects and deficiencies remained, and sufficed to justify the adverse resolution of the CA. We reiterate that compliance with the rules governing appeals should be compelled. Indeed, the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with law. Due to their non-compliance, the petitioners must lose the statutory right to appeal. Strict compliance was indispensable to the orderly and speedy disposition of justice. 8
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution promulgated on September 10, 2015. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-25; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
2.Id. at 20.
3.Id. at 26-28.
4.Id. at 30.
5.Id. at 31.
6.Id. at 33.
7.Id. at 22-25.
8.Magsino v. De Ocampo & Guico, G.R. No. 166944, August 18, 2014, 733 SCRA 202, 210-211.