Sunga v. Javier
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 243673, entitled "Fernando L. Sunga vs. Anthony P. Javier". On January 28, 2019, the Second Division of the Supreme Court denied the instant petition and affirmed the September 18, 2018 and November 29, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157343. The petition was denied due to petitioner's failure to attach a written explanation why personal service on the adverse parties was not done, in violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the requirement is mandated, and non-compliance therewith is a ground for the denial of the petition. The Court further stated that an appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege, and a party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, otherwise the privilege is lost.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243673. January 28, 2019.]
FERNANDO L. SUNGA, petitioner,vs. ANTHONY P. JAVIER, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243673 (Fernando L. Sunga v. Anthony P. Javier)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 18, 2018 2 and November 29, 2018 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157343 for failure of petitioner Fernando L. Sunga (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing his petition for failure to attach a written explanation why service on the adverse parties was not done personally, in violation of Section 11, 4 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court (Rules), in relation to Section 3, 5 Rule 42 of the same Rules.
Jurisprudence teaches that the written explanation why another mode of service was resorted to is a mandatory and indispensable requirement in pleadings or papers filed before all the courts of the land. Strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated by the Court, and non-compliance therewith is a ground for the denial of the petition or the expulsion of the pleading from the records. 6 Since an appeal is not a matter of right but is a mere statutory privilege, a party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, otherwise the privilege is lost. 7 Absent any circumstance that would necessitate the relaxation of the strict rules on appeal, it must be dismissed, as in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
2.Id. at 17-18. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3.Id. at 32-33.
4. Section 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
5. Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Underscoring supplied)
6.Gabriel v. CA, 561 Phil. 673, 681 (2007); see also Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Enanor, G.R. No. 224115, June 20, 2018.
7. See Gabriel v. CA, id. at 681-682.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU