SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235543. March 14, 2018.]
SPOUSES ROBERTO D. OCFEMIA AND FLORIDA N. OCFEMIA, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES SUSANA AND JOSE PALMIANO, JR., MELICIA PALMIANO, THE PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBAY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBAY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: EcTCAD
"G.R. No. 235543 — Spouses Roberto D. Ocfemia and Florida N. Ocfemia versus Spouses Susana and Jose Palmiano, Jr., Melicia Palmiano, The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer of the Province of Albay, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Albay
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated March 14, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated September 26, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140196, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA since the petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The CA held that since the petitioners failed to show that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) committed grave abuse of discretion, there is no reason to set aside, much less nullify, the assailed Orders. The CA held that the RTC correctly dismissed the petitioners' notice of appeal for failure to state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal pursuant to Section 5, 3 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The CA further held that the RTC also correctly denied the petition for relief since the grounds cited therein (i.e., the mistake and inadvertence of the petitioners' counsel in failing to indicate in the notice of appeal the date of receipt of the RTC Decision) does not qualify under Section 2, 4 Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The CA held that the negligence of the petitioners' counsel cannot be considered as excusable, much less unavoidable.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 27-39. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
2.Id. at 41-42.
3. SEC. 5. Notice of appeal. — The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
4. SEC. 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. — When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course.