SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-17022. October 4, 2021.]
LETECIA T. VDA. DE ARIENZA, petitioner,vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CANTILAN, SURIGAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 41 AND MUNICIPALITY OF CANTILAN, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 October 2021which reads as follows:
"UDK-17022 (Letecia T. vda. De Arienzav.Regional Trial Court of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Branch 41 and Municipality of Cantilan, Province of Surigao del Sur). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Letecia T. vda. De Arienza's (petitioner) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DISMISS the petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated July 19, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated March 10, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08588-MIN on the ground of Non-Payment of the Required Docket Fees. The payment of appeal docket fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It is mandatory as it is required in all appealed cases, otherwise, the Court does not acquire the authority to hear and decide the appeal. The failure to pay or even the partial payment of the appeal fees does not toll the running of the prescriptive period, hence, will not prevent the judgment from becoming final and executory, 4 as in this case. HTcADC
In any event, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in dismissing petitioner's certiorari petition taken under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court 5 (Rules) for being the wrong judicial remedy to assail the Decision 6 dated September 19, 2017 and the Order 7 dated November 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, Branch 41 (RTC). As correctly ruled by the CA, the proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution of the RTC is by way of an appeal; it has been consistently held that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action of certiorari will not be entertained. 8 Consequently, having failed to avail of the proper judicial remedy of appeal within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period as prescribed by the Rules, the assailed RTC issuances had already become final and can no longer be reviewed, much less reversed, by the Court.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated May 26, 2021; rollo, pp. 19-62.
2.Id. at 64-72. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
3.Id. at 92-93. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camella with Associate Justices Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and Richard D. Mordeno, concurring.
4.National Transmission Corp. v. Heirs of Ebesa, 781 Phil. 594, 603-604 (2016).
5. Entitled '1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED' (July 1, 1997).
6.Rollo, pp. 145-155. Penned by Presiding Judge Catalina Shineta M. Tare-Palacio.
7.Id. at 176.
8.Chua v. People, 821 Phil. 271, 279 (2017).