SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236040. August 22, 2018.]
PEDRO SAN PEDRO, MARCELINO REYNO, EUGENIO MANIBOG, ROBERT DELA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND HEIRS OF RUFINA ASUNCION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 August 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236040 — Pedro San Pedro, Marcelino Reyno, Eugenio Manibog, Robert dela Cruz, et al. versus Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Heirs of Rufina Asuncion
After an exhaustive review of the instant Petition and its annexes, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
It must be noted that on January 22, 2018, this Court granted the Motion for Extension filed by the petitioners, allowing them to file their Petition on or before December 28, 2017. However, despite the accommodation granted to them by the Court, the petitioners still failed to file their Petition on time, filing the instant appeal only on January 3, 2018. As held by this Court in Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, 1 the timely perfection of an appeal is a mandatory requirement, which cannot be trifled with as a "mere technicality" to suit the interest of a party. The rules on periods for filing appeals are to be observed religiously, and parties who seek to avail themselves of the privilege must comply with the rules. 2 aDSIHc
Further, it must be emphasized that the Court of Appeals (CA) had already issued an Entry of Judgment3 regarding its denial of the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners before the CA. As admitted by the petitioners themselves, they failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the CA assailing the latter's Decision 4 dated May 31, 2016 prior to the end of the reglementary period, albeit allegedly due to mere inadvertence. Thus, the CA held that the assailed Decision dated May 31, 2016 had already become final and executory.
In their Petition, the petitioners attempt to assail the CA's pronouncement by arguing that they sufficiently produced evidence to prove that a motion for reconsideration assailing the CA's Decision dated May 31, 2016 was mistakenly filed by the petitioners with this Court instead of the CA. However, such argument posed by the petitioners, aside from being a judicial admission that they indeed failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, involve factual issues that entail the weighing of evidence. It bears stressing that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record. Factual findings of the CA, affirming that of the trial court, are therefore final and conclusive upon this Court. 5 ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 439 Phil. 793 (2002).
2.Id. at 806, citing Ditching v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 665, 677-678 (1996).
3.Rollo, pp. 218-219.
4.Id. at 40-57. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
5.Cereno v. Court of Appeals, 695 Phil. 820, 828 (2012).