FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244616. June 3, 2019.]
DANILO V. SEVA, petitioner, vs.RAYMOND TRANSPORTATION/SILVINO ESCOBAR/YOLANDA ESCOBAR/RAYMOND ESCOBAR AND MADY ESCOBAR-RAMIREZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 3, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244616 — Danilo V. Seva, petitioner, v. Raymond Transportation/Silvino Escobar/Yolanda Escobar/Raymond Escobar and Mady Escobar-Ramirez, respondents.
The Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition for Review on Certiorari for lack of proof of service on the Court of Appeals (CA) and adverse party in violation of Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and for failure of the affiant in the affidavit of service to indicate his identification details exhibited before the notary public.
The CA promulgated its Decision dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari on August 17, 2018. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its Resolution of January 22, 2019, notice of which was received by petitioner on February 14, 2019. Counting 15 days from this receipt, the due date to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari fell on March 1, 2019. Petitioner, however, only filed said Petition on March 21, 2019 in violation of Section 2, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner's appeal was, therefore, deemed not perfected.
It must be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. This being so, an appealing party must comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with great fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. 1
In any event, petitioner's arguments are patently without merit. The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the common findings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the CA that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and that he was not entitled to his money claims. The factual finding that petitioner was the one who voluntarily severed his employment with respondents by not signing a new employment contract as mandated by Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 118-12 is supported by substantial evidence. We accord not only respect, but even finality, to the factual findings and evaluation of evidence of the labor tribunals, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Petitioner's Manifestation and Compliance submitting the compact disc containing the soft copy of the Petition for Review on Certiorari and its annexes is NOTED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).