Sumiton v. National Commission on Indigenous People
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 15, 2021, in G.R. No. 255446, entitled "Nelton L. Sumiton vs. National Commission on Indigenous People [NCIP]". The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolution dated October 8, 2020, of the Court of Appeals for the petitioner's failure to comply with the reglementary period for the filing of his petition for review. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are essential tools to facilitate the adjudication of cases, and they should be followed except for the most persuasive reasons. The Court held that the petitioner failed to justify why procedural rules should be set aside in his favor, and the Court of Appeals did not err in noting without action his belatedly-filed petition for review.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255446. March 15, 2021.]
NELTON L. SUMITON, petitioner,vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE [NCIP], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 March 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255446 (Nelton L. Sumiton v. National Commission on Indigenous People [NCIP]). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition 1 and AFFIRM the Resolution 2 dated October 8, 2020 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09451-MIN for failure of petitioner Nelton L. Sumiton (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying his motion for reconsideration and noting without action his belatedly filed petition for review.
Time and again, the Court has reiterated that rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 3 In this case, petitioner miserably failed to justify why procedural rules prescribing the reglementary period for the filing of his petition for review before the CA should be set aside in his favor. Hence, the CA did not err in merely noting without action his belatedly-filed petition for review and denying his motion seeking reconsideration of the Resolution dated August 14, 2019 declaring the case closed and terminated.
SO ORDERED." CAIHTE
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
2.Id. at 232-233.
3.Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, 823 Phil. 725, 736, citing Lazaro v. CA, 386 Phil. 412, 417 (2000) and Philippine National Bank v. Deang Marketing Corporation, 593 Phil. 703, 715 (2008).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU