FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214072. December 3, 2014.]
ENERICO * M. SAMPANG, petitioner,vs. NILO M. DEL PRADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 3, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214072 (Enerico M. Sampang v. Nilo M. del Prado). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the July 17, 2014 and September 3, 2014 Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134486 for failure of Enerico M. Sampang (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing his appeal for having been filed out of time.
As correctly found by the CA, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. 2 Thus, absent any cogent reason to deviate therefrom, the petitioner's failure to perfect the same rendered the assailed resolutions final and executory. 3
The petitioner's manifestation on submission of copies of annexes and affidavit of service of the petition for review on certiorari, which were left out during the rush mailing of the copies of the petition to the Court and other parties is NOTED. HTcADC
The petitioner is hereby directed to SUBMIT within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed petition for review on certiorari and its annexes pursuant to the Resolution dated February 25, 2014 in A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Enrico" in some parts of the record.
1.Rollo, pp. 149-152 and 166-168, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang, concurring.
2.Hon. Petilla v. CA, 468 Phil. 395, 404-405 (2004); citation omitted.
3. See id. at 405.