SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224486. August 3, 2016.]
SPS. ROLANDO ABADINGO AND CONSUELO ABADINGO, SPS. DIONISIO KINTANAR AND EVELYN KINTANAR, SPS. EDUARDO GABRIEL, JR. AND TERESITA LAO, EDGAR MORANTE, VIVIAN C. PASTRANO, REGINAL VDA DE ELEMIA, ELENA TUMABINI, SPS. CIRILO CARIGO AND CONSOLACION LABANG, MARNIE VILLAREMO, SPS. EDWIN VERGARA AND JUDITH JIMENEZ, SPS. AGRIPINO MARTINET, CIRIACA ASENTISTA, SPS. AMBROSIA LEYH AND SIEGFRED LEYH, SPS. FELIPE DE PIO AND MARIVIC DE PIO, SPS. DOUGLAS TABORADA AND ROQUITA VILLAMOR, MERCEDES VDA DE CUIZON, RAYNALDO HERNANDEZ, MERCY ANN VILLAR, ANTONIO MIHAYIRA, JONARD MIHAYIRA AND PAUL VINCENT C. BUGASH, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF THE SPS. VITALIANO SABAY AND PURIFICACION DE SABAY, NAMELY, VITALIANO SABAY, JR., EDILBERTO SABAY, CORAZON SABAY-ROBERTS, NATIVIDAD SABAY-LABUS AND TOMAS SABAY, PERFECTO ATILLO AND SPS. ANTOLIN JARIOL, SR. AND MIGUELA JARIOL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224486 — Sps. Rolando Abadingo and Consuelo Abadingo, Sps. Dionisio Kintanar and Evelyn Kintanar, Sps. Eduardo Gabriel, Jr. and Teresita Lao, Edgar Morante, Vivian C. Pastrano, Reginal Vda de Elemia, Elena Tumabini, Sps. Cirilo Carigo and Consolacion Labang, Marnie Villaremo, Sps. Edwin Vergara and Judith Jimenez, Sps. Agripino Martinet, Ciriaca Asentista, Sps. Ambrosia Leyh and Siegfred Leyh, Sps. Felipe de Pio and Marivic de Pio, Sps. Douglas Taborada and Roquita Villamor, Mercedes Vda de Cuizon, Raynaldo Hernandez, Mercy Ann Villar, Antonio Mihayira, Jonard Mihayira and Paul Vincent C. Bugash vs. Heirs of the Sps. Vitaliano Sabay and Purificacion de Sabay, namely, Vitaliano Sabay, Jr., Edilberto Sabay, Corazon Sabay-Roberts, Natividad Sabay-Labus and Tomas Sabay, Perfecto Atillo and Sps. Antolin Jariol, Sr. and Miguela Jariol
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for a) late filing; b) lack of proof of service on the Court of Appeals (CA) in accordance with Section 5 (d), Rule 56 in relation to Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court; c) lack of proper verification of the Petition and a valid certification of non-forum shopping in accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 in relation to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules in that it is signed by counsel without proof of authority to sign for petitioners in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules; and d) failure to show that the CA in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 01667 committed any reversible error in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with the appellate court's December 13, 2013 Resolution.
Petitioners admit that initially, they failed to submit the copies of the missing exhibits within the period given by the CA. They, however, insist that when they filed their Motion for Reconsideration with the CA, they appended to their motion copies of two of the three missing documents ordered to be submitted by the court. They contend that the loss of the exhibits was the fault of the court personnel, not them. Thus, they claim that the CA deprived them of their right to due process and to be fully heard when it dismissed their appeal.
Petitioners' arguments are without merit. IAETDc
Rules of procedure are designed to aid in the administration of justice. Their strict application should be relaxed if they hinder the promotion of justice. Nonetheless, while the Court may relax these rules in the interest of justice, it cannot allow litigants to wantonly and continuously disregard rules of procedure. 1
Here, petitioners themselves admit that in their Motion for Reconsideration they still failed to completely submit the documents required by the CA. Despite the opportunity given to them, petitioners failed to rectify the defects of their appeal. "Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal." 2 Hence, petitioners' non-compliance with the CA Resolution dated December 13, 2013 supports the dismissal of their appeal.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed August 28, 2014 and April 15, 2016 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 01667.
SO ORDERED. (J. Brion, on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rizal vs. Naredo, 684 Phil. 154, 163-164 (2012).
2. Id. at 164. Citation omitted.